Title: Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies.
Series: Issues and Practices
Author: Kerry Healey, Christine Smith, with Chris
O'Sullivan
Published: February 1998
Subject: domestic violence 
211 pages
407,000 bytes

--------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms and tables are not included
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, order a print copy from 
NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

--------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice 

Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and
Criminal Justice Strategies

by

Kerry Healey, Ph. D.
Christine Smith
with Chris O'Sullivan, Ph.D.

February 1998

--------------------------------

Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a
publication series of the National Institute of
Justice. Each report presents the program options
and management issues in a topic area, based on a
review of research and evaluation findings,
operational experience, and expert opinion on the
subject. The intent is to provide information to
make informed choices in planning, implementing,
and improving programs and practice in criminal
justice.

--------------------------------

Carolyn Peake
Program Monitor

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis
Director

Advisory Panel

Robert A. Foster, M.S.W., C.E.O.
Domestic Abuse Counseling Center 
411 Boggs Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15211

Adele Harrell, Ph.D.
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037

Daniel Saunders, Ph.D.
University of Michigan 
School of Social Work
1065 Frieze Boulevard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1284

Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Michigan 
School of Social Work
1065 Frieze Boulevard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1284

Oliver Williams, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Minnesota Graduate
School of Social Work
Ford Hall, Room 400
2224 Church Street
Minneapolis, MN 55455

--------------------------------

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice,
U.S. Department of Justice by Abt Associates Inc.,
under contract #OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or
opinions stated in this document are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

--------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 168638

--------------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
-- Key Points
-- The Nature of the Problem
-- What Is Domestic Violence?
-- Who Batters?
-- Who Are the Victims?
-- The Impact of Battering on Victims and Society
-- What Works: Do Interventions Stop Battering?
-- Conclusion
-- Endnotes

Chapter 2: The Causes of Domestic Violence: From
Theory to Intervention
-- Key Points
-- Overview of Theories and Related Interventions
-- Feminist Approaches: The Social Problem
Approach
-- The Family Systems Model
-- Psychological Approaches: A Focus on Individual
Problems
-- Compatibility of the Models With Criminal
Justice Goals
-- Conclusion: Multidimensional Models Dominate
the Field
-- Endnotes

Chapter 3: Pioneers in Batterer Intervention:
Program Models
-- Key Points
-- Program Procedures
-- Intake and Assessment
-- Victim Contacts
-- Raising Victim Awareness
-- Ongoing Advocacy and Safety Planning
-- Orientation
-- Leaving the Program
-- Program Content: Established Interventions
Using Weekly Groups
-- Accountability as the Foremost Goal
-- Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques
-- The Duluth Curriculum: Issues of Power and
Control as Primary Targets
-- EMERGE and AMEND: More In-depth Group
Counseling
-- Conclusion
-- Endnotes

Chapter 4: Current Trends in Batterer
Intervention: Innovations From the Field and the
Research Community
-- Key Points
-- Interventions Based on Batterer Typologies
-- Mounting Evidence of the Need for Typologies
-- Typology in Action: Colorado's 18th Judicial
District
-- Cultural Specificity: The Influence of Class,
Race, and Subculture
-- Adapting Interventions to Accommodate
Differences in Socioeconomic Status
-- Culturally Competent Interventions: Addressing
Race, Ethnicity, and Subculture
-- Countering the Specialized Programming Trend:
The Compassion Workshop
-- Advantages and Criticisms of the Compassion
Workshop Approach 
-- Conclusion
-- Endnotes

Chapter 5: Criminal Justice Response
-- Key Points
-- Criminal Justice System Issues Affecting
Batterer Intervention
-- Enrollment in a Batterer Intervention Should
Occur Quickly
-- Centralization Improves Service Delivery
-- Prosecutors and Judges Need Accurate and
Complete Defendant Information
-- Intervention Is Needed for All Batterers
-- State Service Provider Standards Help Control
Abuses but May Block Program 
-- Diversity
-- The Key Role of Probation: Batterer Supervision
-- Collaboration Among Community Partners
-- Informal Cooperation Between Probation and
Program Staff
-- Local Domestic Violence Coordinating Committees
-- State-Level Domestic Violence Committees and
Task Forces
-- Conclusion
-- Endnotes

Chapter 6: Sources of Help and Information
-- Key Points
-- Batterer Intervention Training and Materials
-- Criminal Justice Materials and Information
-- National Organizations Concerned With Domestic
Violence
-- State Coalitions on Domestic Violence
-- Information Concerning State and Local
Standards and Guidelines on Batterer Intervention
-- Individuals
-- Selected Bibliography
-- General Information
-- Resources for Practitioners
-- Criminal Justice Issues
-- Specialized Populations and Intervention
Strategies
-- Government Publications Related to Domestic
Violence
-- Program Evaluation

Appendixes
Appendix A -- State Standards Matrix 
Appendix B -- Program Personnel and Criminal
Justice Professionals Interviewed for This Report
Appendix C -- Results of Program Survey
Appendix D -- Sample Program Forms

--------------------------------
 
Foreword
 
In the late 1970's, activists working with
battered women realized that, although they might
help individual victims, no real progress could be
made against the problem of domestic violence
unless actions were taken to reform perpetrators
and challenge the cultural and legal supports for
battering. Batterer intervention was initiated as
a first step toward changing batterers and raising
cultural awareness of the problem. Criminal
justice agencies have responded by referring an
increasing number of batterers to interventions
via pretrial or diversion programs or as part of
sentencing. Among the programs contacted for this
report, court-mandated batterers accounted for
approximately 80 percent of all batterers
attending programs.

To be effective, an integrated criminal justice
response to battering must include all branches of
the criminal justice system, from police to
pretrial screeners, prosecutors, judges, victim
advocates, and probation officers. This report
provides information that these professionals need
to work effectively and knowledgeably with
batterer intervention staff and to make informed
choices about program referral. Program staff will
find information on the responsibilities and
concerns of criminal justice personnel who
prosecute, sentence, and supervise batterers. The
primary goal of the report is to improve the
working relationship and mutual understanding
between criminal justice personnel and batterer
program staff. A secondary goal of the report is
to expand the debate about innovative batterer
intervention approaches to include criminal
justice personnel who work with batterers daily
and criminal justice policymakers who are
concerned with domestic violence. 

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

--------------------------------

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the many individuals in the study
sites who laid aside their pressing and important
work to share with us their considerable knowledge
about batterer intervention. In particular, we
wish to thank the batterer intervention program
directors who welcomed us: Meg Crager of Family
Services of Seattle; Joan Zegree of Zegree, Ellner
and Berrysmith, Seattle; Dr. Ann Ganley, Seattle
V.A. Medical Center; Dr. Roland Maiuro, Harborview
Medical Center of Seattle; Roxanne Roos Finney,
Ina Maka, Seattle; Anna Meyer, Seattle Counseling
Service for Sexual Minorities; Buruch Giday,
Refugee Women's Alliance of Seattle; Dr. David
Adams of EMERGE, Cambridge; Dale Chell, Domestic
Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS), Des Moines;
Robert Gallup of AMEND, Denver; Robert McBride,
The Third Path, Denver; Dr. Steven Stosny,
Compassion Workshop, Montgomery County, Maryland;
Wil Avery, House of Ruth, Baltimore; and Jonathan
Cohen, Batterers Intervention Project, New York
City. A number of other program directors shared
their experiences with us by phone; in particular
we would like to thank Terrence P. Crowley of Men
Stopping Violence, Atlanta, and Sunya Faloyan of
the Empowerment Project, Charlotte. We also thank
the numerous criminal justice professionals,
victim advocates, and policymakers who helped us
with our site visits, including: Judith Shoshana,
Hon. Helen Halpert, Sheila Hargesheimer, Sid
Hoover, and Lynne Gordon in Seattle; Dr. Andrew
Klein and Beth Ledoux in Cambridge; Hon. Carol S.
Egly, Hon. Cynthia Moisan, and Joe Quinn in Des
Moines; Suzanne Sigona, Linda Foote Smith, Dexter
Shipman, Dr. Frank Robinson, Amy Houghton, Debbie
Buckmaster, Mark Barnes, and Linda Ferry in
Denver; and Roni Young, W. Roland Knapp, L. Tracy
Brown, Rachel Wohl, and Peggy Araya in Baltimore.

Advisory board members, Robert Foster, Dr. Adele
Harrell, Dr. Daniel Saunders, Dr. Richard Tolman,
and Dr. Oliver Williams, were especially
responsive and involved in guiding this report to
completion. We are very grateful for their advice
and insights. Dr. Edward Gondolf also provided
important suggestions and information throughout
the research process.

Carolyn Peake, program manager for the project at
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), took an
active interest in the development of the report,
including attending site visits to Seattle and
Montgomery County, Maryland, and provided valuable
support throughout the project. Cheryl Crawford,
the contracting officer's technical representative
at NIJ, and Virginia Baldau, former Director of
NIJ's Office of Development and Dissemination,
both provided helpful suggestions that improved
the report. Peter Finn of Abt Associates
substantially improved drafts with his careful
editing. Jocelyn Page of Abt Associates ably
assisted with the compilation and analysis of
State standards and guidelines for batterer
intervention. Karen Minich, Angela Allegro, Sherri
Brooks, Patricia Harmon, and Mary-Ellen Perry
patiently coordinated the production of the report
and the final desktop publication.

Kerry Murphy Healey, Ph.D.
Consultant to Abt Associates Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Christine Smith
Abt Associates Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Chris O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
Victim Services Research
New York, New York

--------------------------------

Executive Summary

Requiring batterers to attend intervention
programming as a condition of probation or
component of pretrial diversion is fast becoming
an integral part of many jurisdictions' response
to domestic violence, yet many judges and
probation officers lack basic information about
the goals of and methods used by local batterer
programs. The diversity of available programming
and the emotionally charged ideological subtext to
program choice make understanding and working with
program providers potentially difficult for
criminal justice professionals. This report is
intended to meet the need for increased
information exchange between criminal justice
professionals and batterer treatment providers.
Specifically, this report will help criminal
justice personnel -- including prosecutors,
judges, probation officers, and victim advocates -
- better understand the issues surrounding
batterer intervention and enable them to make
appropriate referrals to programs and to
communicate effectively with program providers.
Program staff will find the report helpful in
their efforts to understand the constraints faced
by the criminal justice agencies that refer and
monitor batterers as well as the underlying goals
of the criminal justice system -- to protect
victims and to deter reoffense -- and thus be able
to align program practices with criminal justice
expectations.

The Nature of the Problem

The legal definition of battering varies from
State to State. As defined by many intervention
providers, battering is a constellation of
physical, sexual, and psychological abuses that
may include physical violence, intimidation,
threats, emotional abuse, isolation, sexual abuse,
manipulation, the using of children, economic
coercion, and the assertion of male privilege
(such as making all major family decisions, or
expecting the woman to perform all household
duties). Only some of these behaviors -- most
commonly assault and sexual assault -- are
illegal. The majority of batterers arrested are
heterosexual men; however, between 5 and 15
percent of those arrested for battering are women.
Among females arrested for battering, many are
thought to be "self-defending victims" who have
been mistakenly arrested as primary or mutual
aggressors. A small percentage of those arrested
for battering are gay or lesbian. According to the
1992 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
over 1,000,000 women were victimized by intimates
(boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse or ex-spouse)
compared to 143,000 men. In murders where the
relationship between the victim and the offender
was known, 26 percent of female murder victims
were killed by intimates while 3 percent of male
murder victims were killed by wives or
girlfriends. (For the purposes of this report, the
term "batterer" is given a masculine pronoun
unless female batterers are being discussed.)

The cost of domestic violence to society and to
the victims of battering is immense. Battering
results in physical and psychological damage to
victims, deaths, increased health care costs,
prenatal injury to infants, increased homelessness
of women and children, physical and psychological
damage to children exposed to violence in their
homes, and corresponding increases in demand for
social, medical, and criminal justice services.

The Causes of Domestic Violence

Three theoretical approaches dominate the field of
batterer intervention; however, in practice, most
interventions draw on several explanations for
domestic violence in their work. Each theory of
domestic violence locates the cause of the
violence differently.

o Social and cultural theories attribute domestic
violence to social structures -- such as
patriarchy -- and cultural values that legitimate
male control and dominance over their domestic
partners. Feminist (or "profeminist") batterer
interventions are based on women's experience of
these social and cultural factors, and use
education and skills-building to resocialize
batterers, emphasizing equality in intimate
relationships.

o Family-based theories blame violent behaviors on
the structure of the family and family
interactions rather than on an individual within a
family. Family systems interventions emphasize
building communications skills and may involve the
use of couples counseling with the aim of family
preservation. Family systems interventions are
less common than other types of interventions
because many practitioners object to treatments
that do not assign blame to the batterer and
identify a victim, and because this intervention
approach may transfer some responsibility for the
battering to the victim or endanger the victim if
not performed conscientiously. As of 1996, 20
States had standards or guidelines that prohibit
the use of couples counseling in batterer
treatment.

o Individual-based theories attribute domestic
violence to psychological problems such as
personality disorders, the batterer's childhood
experiences, or biological disposition.
Psychotherapeutic, cognitive-behavioral, and
attachment abuse interventions are based on this
theory.

Pioneers in Batterer Intervention: Program Models

Most pioneers in batterer intervention established
programs based on a feminist educational model.
The Duluth model is an example of a feminist
educational curriculum. The EMERGE model blends
feminist educational approaches with more
intensive group work concerning relationships. At
AMEND, feminist educational topics are used as a
basis for an in-depth intervention addressing
batterer psychology and moral development. All
program models for batterer intervention discussed
in chapter 3 are structurally similar; each
proceeds from intake to assessment, victim
contact, orientation, group treatment, completion
or termination, and follow-up.

Current Trends in Batterer Intervention

A "one-size-fits-all" approach to batterer
intervention cannot accommodate the diverse
population of batterers entering the criminal
justice system. Two new trends reflect the belief
that more specialized approaches are needed:

o interventions tailored to a specific type of
batterer (based on psychological factors, risk
assessment, or substance abuse history); and

o interventions designed to enhance program
retention and efficacy with specific populations
(based on sociocultural differences such as
poverty, literacy, race, ethnicity, nationality,
gender, or sexual orientation). 

Criminal Justice Response

Batterer intervention programs cannot be expected
to deter domestic violence in isolation: a strong,
coordinated criminal justice response is also
needed. The combined impact of arrest,
incarceration, adjudication, and intensive
probation supervision may send as strong -- or
even stronger -- message to batterers about their
responsibility for their abusive behavior as
batterer programs can. As key actions the criminal
justice system can:

o Expedite Domestic Violence Cases. Adopt policies
to expedite batterers' trial dates, sentencing,
probation contact, and batterer program intake.

o Use Specialized Units and Centralized Dockets.
Specialized domestic violence prosecution and
probation units, and centralized court dockets for
battering cases and restraining orders improve
services to victims and better coordinate batterer
prosecution, sentencing, and supervision.

o Gather Broad-based Offender Information Quickly.
Create a system to gather complete defendant
information for prosecutors and judges, including
previous arrests and convictions (for both
domestic violence and other crimes), substance
abuse, child welfare contacts, and victim
information.

o Take Advantage of Culturally Competent or
Specialized Interventions. Maximize effective use
of batterer programming by seeking appropriate
interventions for batterers who are indigent, high
risk, female, mentally ill, or incarcerated.

o Coordinate Batterer Intervention with Substance
Abuse Treatment. In cases where the batterer has
an alcohol or drug abuse problem, courts should
mandate treatment as well as batterer
intervention. Probation officers should
intensively monitor batterers' compliance with
substance abuse treatment through weekly urine
testing.

o Be Alert to the Risks to Children in
Domestically Abusive Households. Judges and
probation officers should be alert to the danger
posed by domestic violence to children (even to
children who are not themselves physically abused)
and coordinate with child protective services and
programs that specialize in domestically abusive
families to insure that batterers' children are
safe and are receiving appropriate services.

o Create a Continuum of Supports and Protection
for Victims. Victim advocates should be provided
to monitor victim safety and to assist victims
with the criminal justice system from the time of
the assault through trial and/or probation. Victim
advocates attached to probation units are
particularly important in monitoring the safety of
women whose batterers are sentenced to a batterer
program.

o Encourage Interagency Cooperation. Organize
formal coordinating committees of probation
officers, prosecutors, battered women's advocates,
child protection workers, and batterer
intervention providers to discuss batterer
referral and monitoring policies regularly.

Conscientious supervision by criminal justice
agencies (including monitoring by pretrial
services, the judiciary, and probation officers)
is central to criminal justice policy concerning
battering and successful cooperation with batterer
interventions.

Sources of Help and Information

There are numerous sources of additional
information on batterer intervention, including
State and national organizations, reference
services, research literature and program manuals,
and individuals who are willing to share their
expertise with others in the field.

--------------------------------

Chapter 1: Introduction

The field of batterer intervention and the
criminal justice system are becoming increasingly
intertwined. On average, batterer intervention
programs surveyed for this report estimated that
80 percent of their referrals were court-mandated.
As a result, criminal justice personnel and victim
advocates need reliable information about the
nature and effectiveness of local interventions,
while intervention providers need to understand
the procedures used and constraints faced by
criminal justice agencies that refer and monitor
batterers. Obtaining current and accurate
information on batterer interventions is
challenging for criminal justice practitioners
because programs are extremely diverse in approach
and reflect a broad -- and often contradictory --
range of beliefs about explanations for battering
as well as appropriate modes of intervention. In
addition, the field is growing and diversifying in
terms of the number of programs being offered,
staff qualifications, and techniques used. Service
providers, criminal justice professionals, mental
health workers, and researchers in the field of
batterer intervention often have deeply held
beliefs concerning "what works" with batterers and
what best serves the needs of the victim and the
criminal justice system. As a result, debates
about batterer intervention may be contentious and
personal, grounded in a mix of social philosophy,
research findings, personal experience, and self-
interest.

To assist courts and probation officers in
selecting suitable batterer interventions -- that
is, programs that emphasize victim safety and have
goals consistent with those of the criminal
justice system -- 27 States and the District of
Columbia had mandated or supported the development
of State-level standards or guidelines for
batterer programs, and another 13 States were in
the process of developing standards by 1997 (see
chapter 5, "Criminal Justice Response," and
appendix A, "State Standards Matrix"). However,
even in States where guidelines or standards are
in place, community domestic violence coalitions,
the judiciary, probation officers, and other
criminal justice professionals often retain
considerable discretion over program accreditation
and referral. Because of the complexity of the
field -- and the seriousness of the ongoing threat
posed to battered women when offenders are
mishandled -- criminal justice professionals who
handle domestic violence cases have increased
responsibility to be knowledgeable about the
content and structure of batterer programs in
their jurisdictions in order to make informed
choices among the interventions being offered.

The Nature of the Problem

Domestic violence intersects with the criminal
justice system in the form of a number of criminal
behaviors: assault and battery, harassment,
breaking and entering, telephone misuse, violation
of an ex parte or protection order, malicious
destruction of property, sexual assault, and
stalking as well as a number of other offenses
that may not be immediately recognizable as
domestic in origin (such as arson, fraud, or
embezzlement). The classification of a crime as
domestic violence may result in a less serious
charge for the batterer despite evidence that
"injuries that battered women receive are at least
as serious as injuries suffered in 90 percent of
violent felony crimes."[2] For this reason,
judges, prosecutors, and probation officers need a
clear sense of what behaviors constitute
battering, who batters, who the victims of
domestic violence are, and how they may appear in
the criminal justice system.

What Is Domestic Violence?

While the origins of domestic violence remain
controversial (see chapter 2, "The Causes of
Domestic Violence"), the majority of intervention
directors interviewed for this report defined
domestic violence as a constellation of physical,
sexual, and psychological abuses.

Anne Ganley, one of the first mental health
providers to establish a batterer treatment
program in the late 1970's, defines domestic
violence in terms of 1) the relationship of
parties to the violence, 2) the perpetrator's
behaviors, and 3) the function these behaviors
serve.

Domestic violence is a pattern of assaultive and
coercive behaviors, including physical, sexual,
and psychological attacks, as well as economic
coercion, that adults or adolescents use against
their intimate partners.[3]

Programs reflecting a feminist perspective define
domestic violence as coercive behavior aimed at
gaining power and control within a relationship
(see the discussion of the feminist model in
chapter 2). This definition, pioneered by Ellen
Pence of Duluth, Minnesota, is summarized in
exhibit 1-1, "The Power and Control Wheel" of the
Duluth model. [4]

Several Behaviors Batterers Use

Ganley's and Pence's work points to the following
common abusive behaviors:

o Physical violence. Physical abuse may include
any unwanted physical behavior against a partner,
such as pushing or shoving, throwing objects,
hitting or beating, choking, burning, using a
weapon, or restraining the partner from leaving.
Physical abuse may also include refusing to get
help for a partner if he or she is sick or
injured. Physical abuse acts as a deterrent to
independent action by the victim, including
attempts to end a relationship or cooperate with
the criminal justice system. Women are in the most
severe danger of physical violence when they try
to leave an abusive relationship: 75 percent of
emergency room visits and calls to the police by
battered women occur after separation.[5] Half the
homicides resulting from domestic violence occur
after separation.[6]

o Intimidation. Intimidation includes looks,
gestures, and actions that remind the victim of
the abuser's potential for physical violence, such
as smashing things, destroying her property,
abusing pets, or displaying weapons. Intimidation
may also include abandoning a partner in a
dangerous place.

o Threats. Abusers may threaten to hurt the
victim, her family, her children, or her pets.
They may also threaten to commit suicide or to
cause trouble for the victim with government
authorities, employers, family, or friends.
Whether credible or not, threats can be as
effective as taking action in deterring the victim
from seeking help.

o Isolation. Isolation includes controlling what
the victim does or whom she sees or contacts. The
abuser may hold the victim against her will, deny
access to a car or telephone, deter her from
working or attending school, or alienate her from
her family and friends. Isolating the victim
destroys the support networks a victim usually
needs to end an abusive relationship and makes her
more vulnerable to the batterer's coercion.

o Emotional abuse. Verbal insults serve to
undermine the victim's self-confidence, thereby
discouraging her from ending the relationship. The
abuser may strive to convince the victim that she
is unattractive, a bad parent or wife, stupid,
unemployable, crazy, incompetent, promiscuous, and
the cause of the batterer's abuse.

o Sexual abuse. Between 33 and 46 percent of
battered women are subjected to sexual abuse,[7]
such as rape (especially following other physical
violence), unwanted sexual practices, sexual
mutilation, or forced or coerced prostitution.
Other practices that some programs consider sexual
abuse include not disclosing a sexually
transmitted disease, making degrading sexual
statements, accusing the woman of having affairs
or attempting to attract other men, forcing her to
imitate pornography or pose for pornographic
photographs,and comparing her body and sexual
behavior to that of other women.[8]

o Using the children. A recent study of batterers
in Dade County, Florida, found that between 30 and
50 percent of the batterers and victims shared
children.[9] The abuser can control the victim by
threats or violence against the children,
criticism of her parenting skills, and threats
related to child custody. By providing for ongoing
contact, joint custody enables the batterer to
continue to intimidate or attack the victim, the
children, or both. Some State statutes now
prohibit joint custody in the event of domestic
violence convictions, and recent research suggests
that witnessing domestic violence has a serious
long-term psychological impact on children,
including increasing the child's own propensity
for violence and delinquency.[10]

o Using economic control. The batterer might keep
control over all of the family's resources,
including the victim's own income if she works,
giving her an allowance or forcing her to ask for
money for basic necessities. He might keep some
sources of family income secret. As a result, many
victims of domestic abuse have to live in a
shelter or become homeless if they leave the
relationship.

o Using male privilege. Batterers use "male
privilege" -- acting like the "master of the
castle," making all important family decisions,
expecting the woman to perform all the household
duties and to wait on him -- to legitimize their
control over the victim by placing their own
behavior in the context of common sexist norms.

Not all of these abusive behaviors are illegal.
However, from the standpoint of many batterer
interventions, all abusive behaviors must be
changed to correct the pattern of abuse (see
chapter 2, "The Causes of Domestic Violence").
David Adams, program director of EMERGE in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, speaks of the need to
"hold convicted batterers to a higher standard"
than the legal standard because, in the context of
a formerly abusive relationship, a perfectly legal
shout or insult recalls for the victim her
partner's earlier abuse, the mere recollection of
which can revive her terror. Officers point out,
however, that legal coercion cannot be used to
enforce a standard not specified in the batterer's
sentence. For example, a probationer sentenced to
attend a batterer program once a week is not in
violation of his probation if program counselors
recommend that he attend additional sessions and
the batterer does not comply. 

Who Batters?

The majority of arrested batterers are
heterosexual men. While the 1985 National Family
Violence Resurvey found that a similar number of
men and women (11.6 percent and 12.4 percent,
respectively) admitted engaging in "any violence"
against their partner during the previous year,
authors of the survey point out that the superior
physical strength and greater aggressiveness of
men is more likely to result in serious injury to
the woman, and that women's violence is often in
retaliation or self-defense.[11] A recent study of
defendants in domestic violence cases in one
jurisdiction found that men were respondents in 90
percent of misdemeanor cases, 85 percent of felony
cases, and 75 percent of civil actions.[12] Among
the smaller percentage of batterers who are
female, four distinct types of offenders are
identified by program directors, probation
officers, and victim advocates. They are lesbian
batterers, so-called "female defendants" (battered
women arrested for violent acts of self-defense),
angry victims who have resorted to violence to
preempt further abuse, and a small proportion of
women batterers who have been the primary
aggressors in an abusive relationship. Researchers
have found that the genuinely violent woman is
usually a former victim of some type of violence -
- child abuse, domestic violence, or sexual crimes
-- and often engages in violent behavior in order
to deter future victimization.[13] (See chapter 4,
"Current Trends in Batterer Intervention," for a
discussion of issues surrounding batterer
intervention with female offenders. Programs
contacted for this report estimate that
approximately 5 percent of batterers referred to
them by the courts were female. Because the
majority of interventions discussed in this report
are designed for male batterers, the term
"batterer" will be given a male pronoun unless
female offenders are being specifically
discussed.) Although there are no reliable
estimates of prevalence, some gay men also batter
their intimate partners and are arrested.[14]

According to the 1992 National Crime Victimization
Survey (the Victimization Survey), 51 percent of
domestic violence victims were attacked by a
boyfriend or girlfriend, 34 percent by a spouse,
and 15 percent by a former spouse.[15] The
backgrounds of incarcerated batterers -- the most
serious offenders -- are similar to those of
offenders convicted of assaults against strangers
and acquaintances: half grew up living with both
parents; 12 percent had lived in a foster home; 22
percent had been physically or sexually abused; 31
percent were the children of substance abusers;
and 35 percent had a family member who had been
incarcerated.[16] Less is known about the
demographic characteristics of low-risk or
"typical" batterers, but program staff and
probation officers emphasized the cultural and
economic diversity of these offenders.

Efforts to identify key demographic,
psychological, and criminal characteristics of men
who batter have led some researchers to propose
batterer profiles or "typologies" to aid criminal
justice professionals and batterer interventions
in predicting batterers' dangerousness and
potential for reoffending, as well as to match
batterers with specialized forms of
intervention[17] (see chapter 4, "Current Trends
in Batterer Intervention"). Preliminary results
from a four-site study directed by Edward Gondolf
have yielded a few clues to batterer psychological
characteristics; for example, 25 percent were
found to have major or severe psychological
syndromes, including paranoia, borderline
tendencies, thought disorders, and major
depression. In terms of personality traits,

o 25 percent had elevated narcissism scores;

o 15 percent were antisocial; and

o 10 percent were clinically compulsive.

The other 50 percent fell into a broad array of
personality types. Gondolf emphasized that no
"uniform or simplistic typologies" were emerging
from his data.[18]

More promising from a criminal justice perspective
are typologies based on simple demographic data,
criminal records, and substance abuse data. One
study by Goldkamp suggests that offenders with
prior arrests involving the same victim, prior
domestic violence or assault and battery arrests,
and drug involvement may be at highest risk for
reoffending.[19] Gondolf found that batterers who
were drunk once a month reoffended at three times
the rate of others in the study.[20]

The significant role of alcohol and drug abuse in
domestic violence -- especially in those cases
coming to the attention of the criminal justice
system -- is often downplayed by program staff
because they wish to keep their intervention
focused on the voluntary nature of domestic abuse
and not excuse the batterer's behavior on the
basis of a medical model of addiction.
Nonetheless, analyses of domestic abuse cases and
restraining orders suggest that between 71 and 85
percent of domestic violence cases involve
batterers who are substance abusers.[21] According
to Peter Kosciusko, a substance abuse counselor at
the Dudley, Massachusetts, District Court, "While
I can't say drinking is the cause of domestic
abuse, it definitely pours gasoline on the fire.
If we can get them sober, we have a good chance of
not seeing them again."[22]

While research findings and most programs
contacted for this study agree that there is no
"typical" batterer, the National Domestic Violence
Hotline cautions victims to be aware of the
potential for danger when a partner manifests
several key behaviors together:

o demonstrating extreme jealousy or
possessiveness;

o switching from charm to anger without warning;

o blaming others for his own negative actions;

o withdrawing love, money, or approval as
punishment;

o undermining his partner's feelings and
accomplishments;

o isolating his partner from friends and family;
and

o exhibiting problems with drugs or alcohol.[23]

Who Are the Victims?

According to the Victimization Survey in 1992,
more than 1,000,000 women and 143,000 men were
violently victimized by intimates.[24] Twenty-six
percent of female murder victims and 3 percent of
male murder victims were killed by intimates
(where the relationship between the victim and the
offender is known). Victimization by intimates
does not vary significantly by race, ethnicity, or
geography. However, some victims of domestic
violence are more vulnerable to abuse because of
age or economic, educational, or marital status.
The Victimization Survey found that the women who
are most likely to be victims of domestic violence
were between 20 and 34 years of age, had not
graduated from college, had annual family incomes
under $10,000, and were divorced or separated.[25]
A recent analysis of homicide data in New York
City revealed that women in the poorest boroughs
(the Bronx and Brooklyn) comprised two-thirds of
the victims killed by their partners and that 75
percent of women killed by husbands or boyfriends
were African-American or Hispanic.[26] According
to Jeff Fagan, Director of the Center for Violence
Research and Prevention, "The myth of the
classlessness of domestic violence is one that has
persisted since the 1960's. The truth is, it is a
problem of poverty, associated with other
characteristics like low marriage rates, high
unemployment and social problems."[27] Experts on
battering emphasize that teenagers and young women
in dating relationships are also at risk for
violence and that battering outside cohabiting
relationships should not be minimized or
ignored.[28]

Intervention providers interviewed for this report
had the impression that another group of women may
be at unusually high risk: women in cross-cultural
relationships. Men and women from different
cultural backgrounds may have very different
expectations about sex roles, acceptable
behaviors, and the use of violence within a
relationship, and men may use these different
perceptions to justify battering. Immigrant women
are also especially vulnerable to abuse. Language
barriers may prevent these women from seeking
assistance from police or victim advocates; their
culture may discourage them from asserting their
legal rights; and, in the case of undocumented
female immigrants, maintaining the relationship
with their abuser may be the only way they can
gain citizenship or avoid deportation.[29]

While women from all professions and socioeconomic
classes -- including businesswomen, lawyers,
doctors, and judges -- are victims of domestic
violence, women with higher incomes and status in
the community often have the resources to deal
with domestic violence privately without involving
the criminal justice system (e.g., by using hotels
or private psychological counseling). Women with
limited employment options or little economic
independence must often rely exclusively on the
criminal justice system for protection.[30]
According to Linda Ferry, who supervises domestic
violence prosecutions in the Denver City
Attorney's Office: "Wealthy people have other
resources. That victim is not necessarily going to
call the police unless she believes her life is in
danger. She may, after the battering episode, go
to her family, or a hotel, or a private physician
who may or may not comply with the law and report
it . . . . Somebody from a poorer neighborhood
will probably end up in Denver General, where
physicians will report it."[31]

Another study found that of 11,218 women
presenting at a metropolitan emergency department
with injuries suffered in domestic violence, 28
percent required admission to the hospital from
injuries and 13 percent required major medical
treatment. Forty percent had previously required
medical care for abuse.[32]

The Impact of Battering on Victims and Society

The prevalence, impact, and expense of domestic
abuse in terms of injuries and fatalities, medical
care, and harm to children is extensive.

o In a 1993 national survey, 7 percent of women in
the United States (3.9 million) reported physical
abuse by their spouse or partner in the previous
year.[33]

o Another 1993 study found that 14 percent of
women reported having been violently abused by a
spouse or boyfriend at some time in their
lives.[34]

o From 1988 to 1991, 42 percent of murdered women
had been killed by their partners.[35] A study of
New York City homicides from 1990 to 1994 found
that 49 percent of murdered women had been killed
by husbands or boyfriends.[36]

o In 1994, 250,000 people were treated in
emergency rooms for injuries inflicted by an
intimate partner -- 18 percent of all victims of
violence admitted to hospital emergency rooms that
year.[37] In 1989, a study of one emergency ward
found that 30 percent of women needing attention
were victims of battering.[38]

o Between 8 and 26 percent of pregnant women in
public and private clinics are victims of domestic
violence.[39] Between 25 and 45 percent of
battered women experience abuse during
pregnancy.[40]

o In 1992, the cost of medical services to
battered women, children, and elderly in Chicago
was $1,633 per person.[41]

These statistics reflect only domestic violence
cases identified by researchers, reported to the
police, or brought to the attention of medical
workers; some researchers estimate that as many as
six out of seven domestic assaults go
unreported.[42] A 1986 Bureau of Justice
Statistics study found that 48 percent of domestic
violence incidents reported in the National Crime
Victimization Survey had not been reported to the
police.[43] Furthermore, females victimized by
intimates were six times more likely not to report
the crime for fear of reprisal than female victims
of violent crimes committed by strangers.[44]
Researchers point out that the National Crime
Victimization Survey is likely to record only the
most egregious acts of domestic violence because
violence not resulting in serious injury or police
intervention may not be regarded by the survey
respondents as a "crime."

Finally, children exposed to domestic violence are
at greater risk for behavioral and developmental
problems, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency,
and suicide. Witnessing domestic violence as a
child probably contributes to the cycle of
violence: many adult batterers witnessed domestic
violence in their homes as children.[45]

The severe personal and social costs of domestic
violence make helping the victim and her children
a moral imperative. However, there can be no
lasting progress against domestic violence without
deterring and rehabilitating the batterer himself.

What Works: Do Interventions Stop Battering?

While numerous evaluations of batterer
interventions have been conducted, domestic
violence researchers concur that findings from the
majority of these studies are inconclusive because
of methodological problems, such as small samples,
lack of random assignment or control groups, high
attrition rates, short or unrepresentative program
curriculums, short follow-up periods, or
unreliable or inadequate sources of follow-up data
(e.g., only arrest data, only self-reported data,
or only data from the original victim).[46] Among
evaluations considered methodologically sound, the
majority have found modest but statistically
significant reductions in recidivism among men
participating in batterer interventions. (See
exhibit 1-2, "Selected Treatment Outcomes.") A
notable exception is Adele Harrell's 1991
methodologically rigorous quasi-experimental
evaluation of batterer interventions in Baltimore,
conducted for the Urban Institute. Harrell's study
raised particular concern in the field by its
unexpected findings that participants in all three
batterer interventions recidivated at a higher
rate than those in the control group.[47]
Preliminary results from Gondolf's four-site study
sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control are
inconclusive: at 12 months, reoffense rates for
program graduates are similar to those for
batterers who dropped out at intake, and no
significant variations exist in outcomes for
batterers in programs of varied length and
curriculum (although a three-month, pretrial,
educational program has shown slightly better
outcomes when socioeconomic factors are taken into
account).[48] Frustration with the lack of
empirical evidence favoring one curriculum or
length of treatment has led some researchers
increasingly to look at batterers as a diverse
group for whom specially tailored interventions
may be the only effective approach. As a result,
current research is shifting toward studying which
subgroups of batterers respond to which
specialized interventions (see chapter 4, "Current
Trends in Batterer Intervention").

At the same time, the question of how to evaluate
batterer interventions may need to be reframed to
include the broader context of criminal justice
support. For example, research suggests that
arrest alone is not as effective in reducing
recidivism as is arrest as part of a coordinated
multiagency response to domestic violence.[49]
These findings point to the need for a broader,
systemic examination of the efficacy of batterer
intervention. It seems likely that even if
research identifies the perfect matches between
interventions and offenders, criminal justice and
community support for the interventions will have
a crucial impact on the effort's success. Andrew
Klein, chief probation officer of the Quincy,
Massachusetts, District Court Model Domestic Abuse
Program, observed, "You can't separate batterer
treatment from its [criminal justice system]
context. You can't study the effectiveness of
treatment without studying the quality of force
which supports it." Research supports this view:
"[P]olice visits to the home, combined with an
eventual arrest of the perpetrator, which was also
followed by court-mandated treatment, were
significantly more likely than other combinations
of criminal justice actions to end repeat
incidents of violence."[50] Gondolf's research
also points to the importance of systemwide
assessments of batterer intervention. In
particular, Gondolf is concerned about the often
long delay between arrest and program enrollment:
"The lag may be so long that the program may be
addressing men about a former life."[51]
Systemwide evaluation could answer the important
question of whether the speed of criminal justice
response and program enrollment is more important
than either program content or length.

In conclusion, Andrew Klein emphasizes that, at a
minimum, every intervention must be effective in
monitoring abusive behavior during the program
because victims are more likely to stay with
batterers who are in an intervention. In Klein's
opinion, "[B]atterer intervention is a public
safety program, not treatment; you must keep the
focus on victim safety. Otherwise, the criminal
justice system is only offering the batterer a
safe haven to escape the consequences of his
offense."

Conclusion

While the criminal justice system is devoting
increased attention to domestic violence, many
mechanisms and protocols for dealing with
batterers are new and still being refined. A
number of States are still in the process of
writing standards or guidelines for batterer
programs. In the absence of conclusive research
findings, practitioners and academics continue to
debate the appropriate content of batterer
interventions. In this dynamic environment, judges
who adjudicate and prosecutors who try domestic
violence cases, probation officers who supervise
batterers, and advocates who serve victims of
domestic violence all need to keep informed about
new developments in the field of batterer
intervention in order to perform their jobs
effectively. The remainder of the report provides
information on the theoretical debate surrounding
domestic violence and batterer intervention
(chapter 2); batterer program operation (chapter
3); current trends and refinements of practice in
batterer intervention (chapter 4); criminal
justice responses to batterer interventions,
including community and interagency cooperation
(chapter 5); and national and local sources of
help and information (chapter 6).

Endnotes

1. For a comprehensive treatment of law
enforcement issues, see Buzawa, E. and C. Buzawa,
Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

2. See Zorza, Joan, "The Gender Bias Committee's
Domestic Violence Study: Important Recommendations
and First Steps," 33 Boston Bar J.4, 13
(July/August 1989); and Langan, P.A. and C.A.
Innes, Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, August 1986: 3.

3. Ganley, A., "Understanding Domestic Violence,"
in Improving the Health Care Response to Domestic
Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care
Providers, Harrisburg, PA: Family Violence
Prevention Fund and the Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, n.d.

4. For an overview of Pence's philosophy and the
Duluth program model (which is also discussed in
chapter 3, "Pioneers in Batterer Intervention"),
see Pence, E., "Batterers' Programs: Shifting from
Community Collusion to Community Confrontation,"
February 1988, available from the Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project (see chapter 6, "Sources of
Help and Information").

5. Stark, E. and A. Flitcraft, "Spouse Abuse,
Surgeon General's Workshop on Violence and Public
Health Sourcebook," presented at the Surgeon
General's Workshop on Violence and Public Health,
Leesburg, Virginia, October 1985, cited in
National Clearing House for the Defense of
Battered Women, Statistics Packet, 3d ed.,
Philadelphia: February 1994.

6. Langhan and Innes, Preventing Domestic Violence
Against Women.

7. Frieze, I. H. and A. Browne, "Violence in
Marriage," in Family Violence: Crime and Justice,
n.d., cited in State of Iowa, Final Report of the
Supreme Court Task Force on Courts' and
Communities' Response to Domestic Abuse, submitted
to the Supreme Court of Iowa, August 1994:10. 

8. Material provided by House of Ruth, Baltimore.

9. Goldkamp, J. S., The Role of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: Dade
County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment, Final
Report, Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research
Institute, June 1996: Executive Summary, viii.

10. A number of child welfare departments, notably
the Department of Social Services in
Massachusetts, have developed protocols and
interventions for children who have witnessed
domestic violence. Research citing the harmful
impact of domestic violence on children include:
Widom, C.S., "The Cycle of Violence," Research in
Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1992: 3;
Thornberry, T.P., "Violent Families and Youth
Violence," Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Fact Sheet #21,
Washington, DC: OJJDP, December 1994; Straus,
M.A., F.J. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Behind Closed
Doors, Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1980;
Peled, I., P.G. Jaffe, and J.L. Edelson, eds.,
Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Community
Responses to Children of Battered Women, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995; Miller, G.,
"Violence By and Against America's Children,"
Journal of Juvenile Justice Digest, 17(12) (1989):
6; Carlson, B.E., "Children's Observations of
Interparental Violence" in Battered Women and
Their Families, ed. A.R. Edwards, New York:
Springer, 1984: 147-167.

11. Straus, M.A. and R.J. Gelles, eds., Physical
Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and
Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990: 96-
98. See also Straus, M.A., "Physical Assaults by
Wives: A Major Social Problem," in Current
Controversies on Family Violence, ed. R.J. Gelles
and D.R. Loseke, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1993: 67-87. This article raises
questions about the nature and prevalence of
violence by women against their partners.

12. Ibid.

13. Recent research on the sequelae of child abuse
and neglect, including child sexual abuse and
witnessing domestic violence as a child, suggest a
link between child victimization and later
involvement in domestic violence for men as well.
See Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz, Behind Closed
Doors.

14. Island, D. and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the
Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic
Violence, New York: Harrington Park Press, n.d.:
12-14.

15. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Domestic
Violence: Violence Between Intimates, Selected
Findings, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, November 1994: 1. (NCJ-149259) 

16. Ibid.

17. Edward Gondolf, Associate Director of
Research, Mid-Atlantic Training Institute, is
conducting a quasi-experimental evaluation of four
model batterer intervention programs. This study,
when concluded, is expected to advance knowledge
of batterer typologies. Daniel Saunders has
analyzed interview data that compares treatment
outcomes of graduates from a cognitive behavioral
group to batterers who received process-
psychodynamic group therapy. See Saunders, D.,
"Interventions for Men Who Batter: Do We Know What
Works?" In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice,
2(3) (1996): 81-93. See also Saunders, D.,
"Husbands Who Assault: Multiple Profiles Requiring
Multiple Responses," in Legal Responses to Wife
Assault, ed. N.Z. Hilton, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1993; Saunders, D., "A Typology of
Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from a Cluster
Analysis," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
62(2) (1992); and Goldkamp, The Role of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 191ff.

18. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996.

19. Goldkamp, The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
197.

20. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996.

21. Doherty, W.F., "Cases Spur Debate on Alcohol's
Link to Domestic Violence," Boston Globe, July 21,
1997, B2.

22. Ibid.

23. National Domestic Violence Hotline, quoted in
program materials provided by the House of Ruth,
Baltimore.

24. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between
Intimates.

25. Ibid.

26. Belleck, Pam, "A Woman's Killer Is Likely to
Be Her Partner, A New Study in New York Finds,"
New York Times, March 31, 1997, A16NE.

27. Ibid.

28. See Sousa, C., L. Bancroft, and T. German,
"Preventing Teen Dating Violence: A Three Session
Curriculum for Teaching Adolescents," produced by
the Dating Violence Intervention Project,
Cambridge, MA (see chapter 6, "Sources of Help and
Information"). 

29. See Lin, M.W.L. and C.I. Tan, "Holding Up More
Than Half the Heavens: Domestic Violence in Our
Communities, A Call for Justice," in K. Aguilar-
San Juan, ed., The State of Asian America:
Activism and Resistance in the 1990s, Boston:
South End Press, n.d.: 321. 

30. See Butler, C., "Myths About Woman Abuse," in
For Shelter and Beyond, 2d ed., Boston:
Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women's
Groups, n.d., 21.

31. Not all States require physicians to report
cases involving domestic violence.

32. Berrios, D.C. and D. Grady, "Domestic
Violence: Risk Factors and Outcomes," The Western
Journal of Medicine, 155(2) (August 1991) cited in
Family Violence Prevention Fund, "The Healthcare
Response to Domestic Violence Fact Sheet," San
Francisco, n.d.

33. The Commonwealth Fund, "First Comprehensive
National Survey of American Women Finds Them at
Significant Risk " (news release), New York: July
14, 1993.

34. Family Violence Prevention Fund, Men Beating
Women: Ending Domestic Violence, A Qualitative and
Quantitative Study of Public Attitudes on Violence
Against Women, New York: conducted by EDK
Associates, 1993, cited in "The Health Care
Response to Domestic Violence Fact Sheet."

35. Analysis by the Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence, Institute for Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, cited
in "The Health Care Response to Domestic Violence
Fact Sheet."

36. Belleck, "A Woman's Killer Is Likely to Be Her
Partner."

37. "Abuse High, Survey Finds," Boston Globe,
August 25, 1997.

38. McLeer, S. and R. Anwar, "A Study of Battered
Women Presenting in an Emergency Department,"
American Journal of Public Health, 79(1) (January
1989), cited in "The Health Care Response to
Domestic Violence Fact Sheet."

39. Berrios, D.C. and D. Grady, "Domestic
Violence: Risk Factors and Outcomes."

40. State of Iowa, Final Report of the Supreme
Court Task Force, 17.

41. Meyer, H., "The Billion Dollar Epidemic,"
American Medical News, January 6, 1992, cited in
"The Health Care Response to Domestic Violence
Fact Sheet."

42. National Clearinghouse for the Defense of
Battered Women, Statistics Packet, 3d ed.,
Philadelphia, February 1994.

43. Langhan and Innes, Preventing Domestic
Violence Against Women.

44. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Domestic
Violence: Violence Between Intimates, 5.

45. Roberts, L. and R. Burger, "Child Abuse," in
For Shelter and Beyond: Ending Violence Against
Women and Their Children, 2d ed., Boston:
Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service
Groups, n.d.: 107; see also note 10.

46. For a critique of major batterer intervention
evaluations, see Davis, R.C. and B.G. Taylor,
"Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A
Synthesis of the Literature," Victim Services
Research, New York, NY, July 1997; Tolman, R. and
J. Edelson, "Interventions for Men Who Batter: A
Review of Research" in Understanding Partner
Violence: Prevalence, Causes, Consequences, and
Solutions, Minneapolis: National Council on Family
Relations, 1995: 262-273; Saunders, D.,
"Interventions for Men Who Batter: Do We Know What
Works?" In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice,
2(3) (1996): 81-93; and Gondolf, E., "Batterer
Intervention: What We Know and What We Need to
Know," Paper presented at the Violence Against
Women Strategic Planning Meeting, sponsored by the
National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC,
March 31, 1995.

47. Harrell, A., Evaluation of Court Ordered
Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders, Final
Report, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,
October 1991.

48. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996. Similarly, Davis and Taylor's study reported
positive outcomes for short-term, intensive
programs.

49. See Rebovich, D.J., "Prosecution Responses to
Domestic Violence: Results of a Survey of Large
Jurisdictions," in Do Arrests and Restraining
Orders Work?, ed. Buzawa and Buzawa, 176-191; and
Schmidt, J. and L. Sherman, "Does Arrest Deter
Domestic Violence," in Do Arrests and Restraining
Orders Work?, ed. Buzawa and Buzawa, 43-53.

50. Tolman and Edelson, p. 264, citing Syers, M.
and J. Edelson, "The Combined Effects of
Coordinated Criminal Justice Intervention in Women
Abuse," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7: 490-
502.

51. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o The connection between the criminal justice
system and batterer interventions is increasing:
on average, 80 percent of clients in batterer
programs are referred by probation officers or by
court mandate.

o Judges, probation officers, criminal justice
policymakers, and victim advocates need to
understand the issues surrounding batterer
intervention so they can make responsible
referrals and communicate effectively with program
providers.

o Batterer program providers need to understand
the constraints faced by criminal justice agencies
that refer and monitor batterers, as well as the
goals of the criminal justice system.

o Battering -- or domestic violence -- may be
defined as a constellation of physical, sexual,
and psychological abuses that may include:
physical violence, intimidation, threats,
isolation, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,
manipulation using children, total economic
control, and assertion of male privilege (such as
making all major family decisions and expecting
the woman to perform all household duties).

o The majority of batterers are heterosexual men.
Heterosexual women offenders constitute between 5
and 15 percent of those arrested for battering,
and a small percentage of arrestees are gay or
lesbian.

o Victims of battering come from all races,
ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups; however,
women with lower socioeconomic status may be at
greater risk for abuse.

o Domestic violence inflicts immense damage to
society in terms of physical and psychological
injury to victims, deaths, health care costs,
prenatal damage to infants, and physical and
psychological damage to children exposed to
violence in their homes.

o Evaluations of batterer interventions often
raise methodological concerns and have yielded few
generalizable conclusions.

o A broader, systemic examination of batterer
intervention that focuses on the criminal justice
response as well as program characteristics is
needed.

--------------------------------

About This Publication

The primary audiences for this report are judges
handling and prosecutors trying domestic violence
cases, probation officers supervising batterers,
victim advocates, and batterer intervention
providers. The report will also be useful to State
and local domestic violence policy planners,
domestic violence coordinating committees, and
departments of public health and child welfare.

Goals of the Report

The primary goals of the report are to:

o provide current and objective information
concerning the range of batterer interventions
currently in operation throughout the country;

o review the most critical issues being debated by
criminal justice professionals, academics, and
service providers in the field;

o review promising criminal justice practices
related to batterer intervention; and

o provide examples of coordinated criminal justice
responses to battering that include referral to
batterer intervention programs.

Program enrollment, completion, and success rates
were provided by the programs described in this
report. No independent evaluations of the programs
were undertaken for the report. However, selected
evaluation literature is listed in chapter 6,
"Sources of Help and Information," and evaluation
outcomes are discussed briefly in this chapter.

The report's focus is batterer interventions and
their links to the criminal justice system.
Because law enforcement commonly has little or no
direct contact with batterer interventions, the
report does not discuss police responses to
domestic violence (e.g., the impact of mandatory
arrest or the effectiveness of restraining
orders).[1]

--------------------------------

Sources of Information for This Report

The information in this report comes from the
following sources:

o structured telephone interviews with program
directors at 22 programs across the country;

o on-site interviews at 13 programs with more than
60 criminal justice professionals, batterer
program directors and service providers, battered
women's advocates and domestic violence
policymakers in Cambridge and Quincy,
Massachusetts; Des Moines, Iowa; Baltimore,
Maryland; Denver, Colorado; and Seattle,
Washington;

o interviews with academics in the field of
batterer treatment and intervention, including
Donald Dutton, University of British Columbia;
Edward Gondolf, Research Director of the Mid-
Atlantic Addiction Training Institute; Kevin
Hamberger, Medical College of Wisconsin; Daniel
Saunders, University of Michigan; Richard Tolman,
University of Michigan; and Oliver Williams,
University of Minnesota; and

o a review of books, reports, and journal
articles, program evaluations, program materials,
and State and local criminal justice protocols.

Site work also included observations: a four-day
batterer treatment training program sponsored by
EMERGE of Cambridge, Massachusetts; a two-day
seminar on intervention with high-risk batterers
given by Michael Lindsey, founder of The Third
Path and AMEND, for Iowa criminal justice
professionals; a domestic violence court docket in
Seattle; and State and local coalition meetings
concerning batterer intervention and batterer
classes and groups. Appendix B lists the names and
affiliations of the individuals contacted at each
site. Selection criteria for programs are
discussed in chapter 3, "Pioneers in Batterer
Intervention: Program Models." Chapter 6, "Sources
of Help and Information," provides a selected
bibliography.

--------------------------------

Chapter 2: The Causes of Domestic Violence: From
Theory to Intervention

The origins of domestic violence are the subject
of active debate among victim advocates, social
workers, researchers, and psychologists concerned
with batterer intervention. More than in most
fields, the theoretical debate affects practice.
Over the last two decades, a number of
practitioners representing divergent theoretical
camps have begun to move toward a more integrated
"multidimensional" model of batterer intervention
in order to better address the complexity of a
problem that has psychological, interpersonal,
social, cultural, and legal aspects. Two
practitioners who advocate an eclectic approach to
batterer intervention describe the dilemma of
practitioners looking for a single explanation for
battering as follows:

During a recent conversation, a respected
colleague of ours suggested that marital
aggression was rooted in a need for control.
"Men," he said, "use aggression to control their
female partners." We agreed. Control is certainly
an important factor in the dynamics of marital
violence. His treatment approach, well known and
effective, focused on helping abusers relinquish
control and share power with their spouses.
Several weeks later, we discussed the same topic
with the director of a treatment program for wife
abusers, who stated that "poor impulse control"
and "defective self-concept" were the critical
factors. We agreed. Abusers are certainly
impulsive and often have poor self-esteem. Her
treatment program, which focused on these factors
was, she claimed, very successful. Sometime later,
one of our graduate students, well aware of these
previous conversations, reported on a workshop she
had attended. The model presented at the workshop
conceptualized marital violence as a couples'
problem and suggested that communication between
spouses was the critical factor. Conjoint couples'
counseling was suggested as an effective
intervention for violent couples. Again, we could
agree. The safest conclusion would appear to be
that there are numerous routes by which husbands
come to be wife abusers and a multitude of
variables that increase the likelihood of
violence.[1]

In practice, few batterer programs represent a
"pure" expression of one theory of domestic
violence; the majority of programs contacted for
this report combine elements of different
theoretical models. As a result, when discussing
program theory with batterer intervention
providers, criminal justice professionals need to
understand not only the primary theory the program
espouses but also the program's content, because
programs may identify with one theory but draw on
or two more theories in their work. Experts
caution criminal justice agencies against
accepting an eclectic curriculum uncritically:
program components borrowed from different
theoretical perspectives should be thoughtfully
chosen to create a coherent approach, not a
scattershot attempt hoping to hit some technique
that works.

Criminal justice professionals are likely to
encounter programs based on one or more of the
following theories of domestic violence. Each
theory locates the cause of the violence
differently:

o Society and culture -- Social theories of
domestic violence attribute the problem to social
structures and cultural norms and values that
endorse or tolerate the use of violence by men
against women partners. For example, the feminist
model of intervention educates men concerning the
impact of these social and cultural norms and
attempts to resocialize them emphasizing
nonviolence and equality in relationships.

o The family -- Some sociologists locate the cause
of domestic violence in the structure of the
family, the interpersonal interactions of
families, and the social isolation of families.
For example, family systems theory attributes the
cause to communication problems and conflict
within intimate relationships and teaches
communication skills to help partners avoid
violence. As noted below, couples counseling, an
intervention based on family systems theory, is
controversial because of its failure to assign
blame for the abuse to one person and to identify
a victim. Couples counseling is also considered
dangerous to the victim because it encourages the
victim to discuss openly issues that may spark
later retaliation by the batterer.

o The individual -- Psychological theories
attribute domestic violence to the individual
batterer's predispositions and experiences.
Battering may be attributed to personality
disorders and biological dispositions to violence
or, as social learning theory suggests, to the
role of the batterer's social environment during
childhood. Attachment theory, a form of social
learning theory, focuses on the interaction of
caregivers with their children and the impact of
that first attachment on an individual's ability
to establish safe and healthy relationships later
in life. Batterer interventions based on this
theory attempt to facilitate secure attachments
between batterers and loved ones (intimate
partners, children, and parents). Psychodynamic
approaches target the underlying psychological
cause of the violence, while cognitive behavioral
approaches teach batterers new patterns of
nonviolent thinking and behavior.

It is important for criminal justice professionals
to understand the assumptions and goals of service
providers whose interventions have divergent
theoretical bases, because not all intervention
approaches employ techniques that are equally
compatible with the goals of the criminal justice
system -- protecting the victim as well as
rehabilitating the offender.

Overview of Theories and Related Interventions

Feminist (or profeminist; see box, "The Language
of Batterer Intervention"), family systems, and
psychotherapeutic theories of domestic violence
offer divergent explanations of the root causes of
battering and lead to distinct intervention
models. The following section outlines the basic
tenets of each theory, illustrates how these
assumptions influence the choice of intervention
strategies, and notes the advantages and
disadvantages of each theoretical and treatment
approach. As noted previously, however, examples
of programming based exclusively on one theory are
becoming increasingly rare.

Feminist Approaches: The Social Problem Approach

Batterer intervention programs originated in the
early 1970's, as feminists and others brought to
public attention the victimization of women and
spawned grass roots services such as rape hot
lines and battered women's shelters.[3] According
to Anne Ganley of Seattle's Veteran Administration
Medical Center and David Adams of EMERGE in
Boston, providers of services to battered women
felt that victims who had received services either
returned home to face the same destructive
environment or left the relationship -- and the
batterer found a new victim. To help victims,
advocates realized, it was also necessary to
address the root cause of their problems -- the
perpetrators of violence. Profeminist men
concerned with sexism in themselves and society
felt a particular responsibility for working with
male abusers. As a result, some of the first
systematic interventions for batterers developed
from a profeminist perspective.

What Is a Feminist Model of Battering?

Central to the feminist perspective on battering
is a gender analysis of power.[4] According to
this view, domestic violence in intimate
relationships mirrors the patriarchal organization
of society in which men play a dominant role in
most social institutions. Along with verbal,
emotional, and economic abuse, violence is a means
of maintaining male power in the family when men
feel their dominance is being threatened. Economic
roles have left women dependent on men and unable
to escape abusive situations.[5] Men's superior
physical strength may enable them to dominate
women through violence.

Feminists argue that a consequence of the social
arrangement in which men hold the positions of
respect and power is that men and women alike
devalue the feminine and over-value the masculine.
To the batterer, women are childlike and
incompetent. It is not uncommon for batterers to
convince their wives that they are not capable of
adult activities, such as driving a car or holding
a job.[6] For example, a former victim reported
that her husband had convinced her that she could
not turn on the washing machine without breaking
it, so she had to wait until he returned from work
before she could do the laundry for their seven
children. Similarly, in disputed custody cases
when a batterer and partner separate, the husband
often contends that his wife is incapable of
taking care of the children.[7]

In the feminist view, batterers feel that they
should be in charge of the family: making
decisions, laying down rules, disciplining
disobedient wives and children, and correcting
unsatisfactory performance of duties.[8] Batterers
may typically exercise control over the family in
nonviolent, coercive ways and only sometimes
resort to violence. As men, batterers feel
entitled to gender-based respect and obedience;
therefore, what they perceive to be disrespect and
disobedience infuriates them. Batterers often
rationalize their violence on the grounds that it
was necessitated by their partner's actions: she
provoked or caused it, and they simply reacted as
any man would.

Feminist programs attempt to raise consciousness
about sex role conditioning and how it constrains
men's emotions and behavior (through education
around sexism, male privilege, male
socialization). Programs with a feminist
philosophy present a model of egalitarian
relationships along with the benefits of
nonviolence and of building relationships based on
trust instead of fear (see exhibit 2-1, "Equality
Wheel"). Most feminist approaches support
confronting men over their power and control
tactics in all domains of the relationship,
including verbal and psychological abuse, social
isolation, the undermining of the victim's self-
confidence, and sexual coercion (see exhibit 1-1,
"The Power and Control Wheel"). A particular
concern of profeminist male group facilitators is
the constant risk and temptation of colluding with
batterers. For example, a male facilitator at
Family Services of Seattle reported that when his
female cofacilitator was absent at one session,
the men in the group expected him to drop his
profeminist "guise" and participate in or agree
with their negative characterizations of women. 

Advantages and Criticisms of the Feminist Model

Perhaps because work with batterers was originated
by battered women's advocates and feminists, the
feminist perspective has influenced most programs.
A national survey conducted in 1986 found that 80
percent of programs attempt to change sex role
attitudes, stop violence, and increase self-
esteem.[9] Even programs adopting a family systems
model (see below) may advocate an egalitarian and
democratic relationship to couples in treatment.
Support for the feminist analysis of the role of
power in domestic violence comes from the
observation that most batterers are able to
control their anger and avoid resorting to
violence when "provoked" by someone more powerful
than they, such as their work supervisors, police
officers, or judges. Further support for the
feminist analysis comes from research showing that
batterers are less secure in their masculinity
than nonbatterers[10] -- the theory being that men
who do not feel masculine will need to assert
their masculinity more forcefully to compensate
for their sense of inadequacy. Other studies have
documented the sense of entitlement batterers feel
in controlling their partners' behavior and in
justifying violence if these women deviate from
the female sex role.[11]

Critics have claimed that the feminist perspective
overemphasizes sociocultural factors, such as
patriarchal values, to the exclusion of individual
factors like growing up abused.[12] Men's behavior
in intimate relationships varies across
individuals, and broad cultural factors cannot
explain this variability. Feminist theory predicts
that all men in our society will be abusive, claim
its critics, adding that besides being untrue,
this theory makes it impossible to predict which
men will be violent. To make individual
predictions, a model must assign a role to other
factors including, but not limited to,
psychological deviance.

Other criticisms center not on the validity of
feminist explanations of battering but on the
translation of that theory into programming. For
example, some observers argue that feminist
educational interventions are too confrontational
in tone and, as a result, are ultimately self-
defeating, alienating batterers, increasing their
hostility, and making them less likely to become
engaged in treatment. It is possible that the goal
of the feminist model -- to rebuild the batterer's
belief system in order to achieve nonviolence --
may be unnecessarily ambitious and adversarial.
Batterers' existing value systems may be more
easily fine-tuned to emphasize nonviolence (e.g.,
building on religious convictions or humanism)
without a feminist overlay.

Another concern is that educational programs may
effectively transmit information without deterring
violent behavior. A 1991 evaluation of three
short-term psychoeducational batterer programs in
Baltimore found that while batterers considered
the curriculum helpful, they recidivated at a
higher rate than batterers who did not receive
treatment.[13] A study of graduates of Duluth's
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project found that
completion of the feminist educational
intervention had no impact on recidivism after
five years.[14] Outcomes such as these point to
the need for broader evaluations that examine the
impact of systemic factors -- arrest and
prosecution policies, court procedures, and
probation supervision -- on intervention
effectiveness, as well as a clarification of the
goals of feminist-based interventions. If
deterrence is not a likely outcome of an
intervention, other goals, such as punishment,
education, behavioral monitoring, or social
change, must be explicitly advanced. (A few
practitioners are in fact shifting their primary
focus away from individual change in batterers in
favor of social change through a coordinated
community response. See chapter 5, "Criminal
Justice Response").

The Family Systems Model

The family systems model regards individual
problem behaviors as a manifestation of a
dysfunctional family unit, with each family member
contributing to the problem. Rather than
identifying one individual as the cause of the
violence and removing that person from the home or
singling that person out for treatment, the model
advocates working with the family or couple
together, providing support with the goal of
keeping the family intact.

According to the family systems (or
"interactional") model,[15] both partners may
contribute to the escalation of conflict, with
each striving to dominate the other. Family
systems theorists believe that most abuse is
verbal and emotional, but as the conflict
escalates, either partner may resort to violence.
Because, from this perspective, interactions
produce violence, no one is considered to be the
perpetrator or victim, even if only one person is
physically violent. Family systems theory also
suggests that interactions may permit or
facilitate abusive behaviors in one person, such
as a nonabusive parent's failure to intervene in
child abuse or a family member's failure to
establish appropriate personal boundaries, thus
setting the stage for their own victimization.
Family systems therapists criticize psychological
approaches that focus on individual deficits (low
self-esteem, dependence, anger) while neglecting
to teach interpersonal skills that could promote
safety. Family systems theory leads to treatment
that involves improving communication and conflict
resolution skills. Both members of the couple can
develop these skills through "solution-focused
brief therapy" that:

o locates the problem in the interaction rather
than in the pathology of one individual;

o focuses on solving the problem, rather than
looking for causes; and

o accentuates the positive -- for example,
examining occasions when the couple avoided
violence.

Advantages and Criticisms of the Family Systems
Model

Advocates of the family systems approach note that
many violent couples would like to remain together
and that there may be positive aspects to the
relationship that counseling can build on.
However, while some observers report that over
half of domestic violence couples remain
together,[16] a study of abused wives whose
husbands did become nonviolent found that most of
the women subsequently terminated the marriage
because of other marital problems that became
apparent after the violence ended.[17]

Both feminist and cognitive-behavioral approaches
agree that partner abuse does not involve shared
responsibility. Both approaches firmly hold that
batterers bear full responsibility for the
violence, victims play no causal role, and no one
incites violence. Of particular concern to both
feminist and cognitive-behavioral proponents is
the format of couples counseling: encouraging each
partner to discuss problems openly with the other
partner can put the victim at risk after the
session if the woman expresses complaints.
Furthermore, no frank exchange between counselor
and victim concerning the abuse is likely to be
possible in the presence of the batterer.
Moreover, the format is conducive to victim-
blaming. Finally, if the court prohibits the
batterer from contacting the victim, the family
systems approach will violate the court order. For
these reasons, couples counseling is expressly
prohibited in 20 State standards and guidelines
(see box, "Controversial Approaches to Batterer
Intervention" and appendix A.3). Judges involved
with partner abuse cases that also involve child
abuse need to pay particular attention to safety
issues raised by family systems interventions,
which may be the treatment approach recommended by
child welfare workers who are working toward a
goal of family reunification. In such cases,
issues of victim and child safety must be weighed
carefully, and if a family systems approach is
chosen, close monitoring is needed.

Psychological Approaches: A Focus on Individual
Problems

Psychological perspectives hold that personality
disorders or early experiences of trauma
predispose some individuals to violence.[18] Being
physically abusive is seen as a symptom of an
underlying emotional problem.[19] Parental abuse,
rejection, and failure to meet a child's
dependence needs can be the psychological source
of battering. People with these underlying
problems may choose partners with whom they can
reenact the dysfunctional relationship they had
with their parents. Two forms of batterer
intervention have evolved from this perspective:
individual and group psychodynamic therapy and
cognitive-behavioral group therapy.

Individual and Group Psychodynamic Counseling

Psychoanalysis can be undertaken not only in
individual counseling but also in unstructured
batterer groups that allow members to explore
their life experiences. Psychodynamic therapies
involve uncovering the batterer's unconscious
problem and resolving it consciously. Proponents
of psychodynamic therapy for batterers believe
that other interventions are superficial: since
other therapies are unable to eliminate the
abuser's deep-rooted and unconscious motive for
aggression, they cannot end violence but only
suppress it temporarily. Long-term change requires
exposing and resolving the root cause of the
violent behavior.

Advantages and Criticisms of Psychodynamic
Approaches 

Browne and Saunders recently conducted a study
comparing a "process psychodynamic treatment
model" with a feminist/cognitive-behavioral
intervention and found no difference in recidivism
rates based on partners' reports. Nevertheless,
they argue:

[T]here were two advantages to the process-
psychodynamic model. It retained a significantly
higher percentage of men in treatment and it was
more successful with men who had dependent
personality disorders. Regardless of the treatment
approach used, more self-disclosure and less
lecturing were related to greater group cohesion,
which in turn was related to lower recidivism
rates.[20] 

Critics argue that psychodynamic therapy merely
assigns a psychiatric label to people who batter
(e.g., insecure, narcissistic, dependent,
compulsive, or suffering from intermittent
explosive disorder) without explaining how they
got that way or what can be done about it.[21] The
psychodynamic approach has also been criticized
for allowing batterers to continue the behavior
until the underlying psychological problem is
resolved.[22] David Adams, director of EMERGE,
gives the example of a batterer mandated to
treatment who had already learned in individual
psychotherapy that he battered because he was
insecure. At the intake interview for the batterer
program, the counselor asked the man whether he
was going to continue to choose to be violent
until he resolved his insecurity. The man said
that he had never thought of battering as a
choice, but now he would reconsider the
notion.[23] Feminists argue that labeling
batterers as having psychological problems not
only exonerates them in their own eyes but also
ignores the cultural acceptability of male
dominance in the family and how it serves to keep
the batterer in control of his partner. The
approach pays attention to internal psychological
functions of abuse for the batterer but ignores
the interpersonal function of controlling the
other person's behavior.

In practice, many psychologically oriented
programs have moved away from the original stance
that battering is caused primarily by
psychological disorder and always indicates an
emotional problem. Instead, they have integrated
social explanations with psychological
explanations. For example, some psychologically
oriented theorists propose that it is the
combination of a man's low self-esteem and a
cultural expectation that men should be dominant
and successful that produces a batterer.

Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Change

Cognitive-behavioral therapy is used in the
treatment of violent offenders. Whereas the
psychoanalytic tradition focuses on psychological
disorders based in the unconscious and early
childhood experiences, the cognitive-behavioral
model focuses on conscious material in the
present: therapy is intended to help individuals
function better by modifying how they think and
behave in current situations. The theory behind
cognitive-behavioral batterer interventions
maintains that behaviors are learned as a result
of positive and negative reinforcements (rewards
and punishments) for engaging in particular
behaviors under particular circumstances (e.g.,
parental pride or praise for aggressive behavior).
Behavior is also influenced by how people mentally
construct and interpret their environment and
experiences -- that is, the way they think about
themselves,other people, and their relationships.
The cognitive-behavioral theory postulates that
men batter because:

o they are imitating examples of abuse they have
witnessed during childhood or in the media;

o abuse is rewarded;

o it enables the batterer to get what he wants;
and 

o abuse is reinforced through victim compliance
and submission.

Cognitive-behavioral interventions focus on
"cognitive restructuring" and skill building.
Counselors focus on identifying the chain of
events that lead each batterer to violence,
starting with beliefs and "self-talk" -- the way
we talk to ourselves in our minds (see exhibit 2-
2, "A Cognitive Model of Woman Abuse"). For
example, a batterer whose partner is ten minutes
late may tell himself, "She's out with her
boyfriend" or "She can't be trusted." The programs
attempt to restructure the beliefs and "self-talk"
that lead to violence; for example, "I don't know
why she's late, but I'm sure she's trying to get
here." The programs help batterers to analyze the
thought patterns underlying violent reactions
(e.g., "Dinner isn't ready because my wife doesn't
respect me") and learn new ways of understanding
situations that trigger violence (e.g., "Dinner
isn't ready because my wife had a busy day"). The
program teaches nonviolent alternative behaviors,
such as conflict-resolution tactics, relaxation
techniques, and communication skills.[24]

Advantages and Criticism of the Cognitive-
Behavioral Models 

One advantage of the cognitive-behavioral model is
that its analysis of battering and its
intervention strategy are compatible with a
criminal justice response to domestic violence.
The approach holds the batterer fully responsible
for his violence and fully responsible for
learning and adopting nonviolent alternatives.
Without trying to solve larger issues of social
inequality on the one hand, or delving into deep-
seated psychological issues on the other, the
cognitive-behavioral approach simply focuses on
the violent acts themselves and attempts to change
them. The model also offers a straightforward
intervention that can be implemented in a limited
period of time.

The feminist perspective criticizes the cognitive-
behavioral approach for failing to explain why
many men with thought patterns or skills deficits
that allegedly explain their domestic violence are
not violent in other relationships, how culture or
subcultures influence patterns of violence, and
why some men continue to abuse women even when the
behavior is not rewarded.[33] These criticisms are
usually moot because most cognitive-behavioral
programs integrate the feminist analysis of
domestic violence, both in the cognitive component
(for example, by examining thoughts that encourage
wife-beating, such as "She should obey me. I'm the
man of the household.") and the social learning
aspects (for example, by discussing how sexism in
the media and in society provides models of social
support for abusing and degrading women). (See
exhibit 2-3, "Example of an Integrated
Feminist/Cognitive-Behavioral Strategy.")

Compatibility of the Models With Criminal Justice
Goals

The feminist educational approach to batterer
intervention is theoretically more compatible with
a criminal justice perspective than either the
family systems or psychotherapeutic approaches in
several respects.[34]

o The feminist educational view of domestic
violence is that the behavior is criminal, not
just the result of faulty couple interactions or
mental illness.

o The feminist educational view is that
consequences are appropriate. By contrast, the
psychotherapeutic explanation results in a
treatment approach that is designed to modify the
inner emotional life of the batterer through
insight and possibly medication. Changing the
inner person and prescribing medication to alter
behavior may be considered by some to be beyond
the scope of a criminal justice intervention.

o The primary goal of feminist educational
programs is to hold batterers responsible for
their violence. While most psychological programs
also make this claim, feminists believe that the
psychotherapeutic view of batterers as victims of
childhood trauma or other mistreatment undercuts a
program's ability to hold batterers responsible.
The family systems approach -- unlike the criminal
justice system -- holds the victim as well as the
batterer accountable.

o The explicit goal of feminist educational
approaches is to end the abusive behavior rather
than to heal the batterer (the psychotherapeutic
goal) or to improve relationships (the family
systems goal).

A case can be made, however, that psychological
interventions can also meet the needs of the
criminal justice system. The aim of the criminal
justice system in sending men to batterer programs
is to reduce recidivism; for this to happen, the
intervention has to be effective. While advocates
of the feminist educational model criticize the
psychotherapeutic model for failing to hold
batterers responsible for their behavior,
advocates of the psychotherapeutic approach
respond that educational interventions are not
successful in deterring or rehabilitating
batterers because they are too short and
superficial and do not address the needs of
batterers with severe mental illness, who may
comprise up to 25 percent of all batterers.[35]
Indeed, the "confrontational" and didactic process
of the feminist model -- as well as the feminist
rhetoric in which it is framed -- may alienate the
batterer and increase his hostility and
resistance. For example, an assistant group
facilitator for the Compassion Workshop in Silver
Spring, Maryland, reported that, when he was in
treatment, feminist interventions had only
increased his anger and denial, while subsequent,
nonconfrontational, compassion-based treatment had
helped him become nonviolent. His wife, a
cofacilitator of the group whose role was to give
the perspective of the victim, agreed that the
feminist education model had exacerbated her
husband's abuse but that after psychologically
oriented counseling, he was now violence free.

While the narrow treatment goals of the strictly
educational feminist programs are compatible with
the criminal justice view -- simply stopping the
abusive behavior as expeditiously as possible and
holding the batterer responsible -- the feminist
theory of domestic violence also has broad social
goals that may be seen as going beyond the purview
of the criminal justice system. Because feminist
theory locates the cause of domestic violence in
social structures and the organization of society,
social change may be seen as the ultimate goal of
the curriculums. In a sense, though, even this
broad goal is consistent with a criminal justice
agenda in that it suggests that broad-based
community education and a coordinated community
response are necessary for preventing domestic
violence. In contrast, it is difficult to identify
a broad prevention strategy that follows from
either the individualistic psychotherapeutic
theory of domestic violence or the family systems
model.

Finally, some practitioners and criminal justice
professionals are beginning to regard any form of
batterer intervention as a proxy for intensive
probation. While the curriculum may not deter
reoffenses over time, at least during program
participation batterers are being monitored
closely, and their victims are receiving at least
minimal attention and referrals. This heightened
vigilance with regard to the batterer's behavior
and the victim's welfare is compatible with
criminal justice goals.

As will be seen in the following chapters,
however, theoretical compatibility with the
criminal justice system is not the only important
factor in selecting a batterer intervention. On a
practical level, interventions must be able to
retain batterers in treatment and address any
obstacles to program participation.

Conclusion: Multidimensional Models Dominate the
Field

Many practitioners accept that there are
compelling features in more than one theoretical
model. In practice, regardless of their primary
perspective, most programs have adopted some
tenets of the feminist model. For example, they
view sexual inequality and masculine role
expectations of dominance as core issues to
address -- along with cognitive-behavioral
techniques for modifying behavior -- and they
teach batterers to use "time-outs" (a behavioral
technique for controlling emotional outbursts).
Longer-term programs may progress through the
feminist and cognitive models in stages, and some
even progress to a psychotherapeutic group process
model for aftercare. These programs have a brief
initial phase using a feminist educational model
to tackle denial of responsibility, a longer
second phase teaching cognitive-behavioral
techniques for skill-building, and a third phase
delving into individual psychological issues in an
unstructured format for those men identified as
having psychological problems contributing to
battering. (See chapter 3, "Pioneers in Batterer
Intervention: Program Models," for a detailed
description of various program models.) Other
programs blend treatment modalities and approaches
by combining individual, group, and couples
treatment sequentially over an extended period of
two to three years.

Programs may also use different models or
materials to accommodate the special needs of
specific types of batterers, most commonly
substance abusers, African Americans, Asians,
Latinos, recent immigrants, female offenders, gay
and lesbian batterers, or batterers with poor
literacy skills. (See chapter 4, "Current Trends
in Batterer Intervention," for a discussion of
culturally specific interventions.)

Some practitioners may resist incorporating
consideration of individual psychology and
cultural differences in interventions because they
are concerned that the individual approach will
eclipse consideration of the sociological factors
emphasized by the prevailing feminist model.
However, the critical issue from a criminal
justice perspective is simply "what works"; if
mixed-model interventions that incorporate
psychotherapeutic elements or cultural competence
are shown to be more effective in retaining and
engaging batterers in treatment, questions of
theory are likely to become secondary.

Discussions such as these are rapidly being
translated into experiments in practice. Chapter
4, "Current Trends in Batterer Intervention,"
discusses a range of innovations in batterer
treatment that attempt to link individual
characteristics of batterers to specific
interventions or combinations of interventions in
order to increase program retention and
effectiveness.

Endnotes

1. Rosenbaum, A. and R.D. Maiuro, "Eclectic
Approaches in Working With Men Who Batter," in
Treating Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and
Programs, ed. P.L. Caesar and K.L. Hamberger, New
York: Springer, 1989: 65-195.

2. Mary Russell, for example, justifies her use of
the expression "wife assault" on the grounds that
"domestic violence" and "family violence" ignore
the "male to female direction" of most violence
between partners. See Russell, M., "Wife Assault
Theory, Research, and Treatment: A Literature
Review," Journal of Family Violence, 3 (3) (1988):
193-208.

3. Schechter, S., Women and Male Violence: The
Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women's
Movement, Boston: South End Press, 1982.

4. Pence, E. and M. Paymar, Education Groups for
Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model, New York:
Springer, 1993.

5. In support of the point that women may remain
with men who abuse them because of economic
dependence, Ida Johnson found in a study of 426
battered women leaving a Central Florida battered
women's shelter that a woman was more likely to
return home if the batterer had a high income and
the woman was unemployed; if she had an
independent income and his income was insufficient
to support a family, the woman was unlikely to
return home. Johnson, I. M., "Economic,
Situational, and Psychological Correlates of the
Decision-making Process of Battered Women,"
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, (March 1992): 168-176.

6. There is disagreement over whether batterers
actually believe that women are incompetent or
whether promoting that notion merely serves their
needs to control their wives in order to restrict
their activities. Rusbult and Martz, in a study of
women leaving a domestic violence shelter in
Lexington, Kentucky, found that the strongest
predictor of whether women would return to the
batterer was whether they had a driver's license
and access to a car. Rusbult, C.E. and J. M.
Martz, "Remaining in an Abusive Relationship: An
Investment Model Analysis of Nonvoluntary
Dependence," Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21 (1995): 558-571.

7. O'Sullivan, C. and B. Birns, Contested Custody
Cases When Violent Marriages End, Paper presented
at the First National Conference on Children
Exposed to Family Violence, Austin, Texas, June
1996.

8. Browne, K., D.G. Saunders, and K.M. Staecker,
"Process-Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter:
Description of a Brief Treatment Model,"
University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.

9. Gondolf, E. W. and J. Hanneken, "The Gender
Warrior: Reformed Batterers on Abuse, Treatment,
and Change," Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2)
(1987): 177-191.

10. Gondolf and Hanneken, "The Gender Warrior."
The measure is Bem's Sex Role Inventory.

11. Browne, Saunders, and Staecker, "Process-
Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter."

12. Dutton, D., "Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The
Ecological Fallacy," Violence and Victims, 9 (2)
(1994): 167-182.

13. Harrell, A., "Evaluation of Court Ordered
Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders," Final
Report, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1991.

14. A 1990 evaluation of the Duluth Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project (DAIP) found that program
participation had no impact on recidivism. She,
M., "Predicting Batterer Recidivism Five Years
After Community Intervention," Report, Duluth,
Minnesota, 1990.

15. Giles-Sims, J., Wife-battering: A Systems
Theory Approach, New York: Guilford, 1983.

16. While it is true that many victims who seek
services want to maintain the relationship while
eliminating the abuse, and that most programs
report that 30 to 40 percent of the men in
treatment are separated, no long-term data show
what percent of relationships in which there has
been battery last. See Sirles, E.A., S. Lipchik,
and K. Kowalski, "A Consumer's Perspective on
Domestic Violence Interventions," Journal of
Family Violence, 8 (3) (1993): 267.

17. Bowker, L., Ending the Violence: A Guidebook
Based on the Experience of 1,000 Battered Wives,
Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, 1986.

18. Russell, "Wife Assault Theory."

19. Specific disorders that have been found in
batterers are post-traumatic stress disorder
(probably due to childhood trauma), depression,
low self-esteem, and personality disorders.
Personality disorders usually mentioned by
therapists who work with batterers are antisocial
personality disorder, narcissism, and borderline
personality disorder. In addition, passive-
aggression, paranoia, obsessive-compulsive
disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder have
been said to foster aggression. A
psychotherapeutic reference describes the
personality disorders as follows: People with
antisocial personality disorder are irresponsible,
irritable, and aggressive; they are not sadistic
but are reckless and have no remorse; they are
unable to maintain friendships or romantic
relationships. Narcissists are hypersensitive but
lack empathy; they have difficulty with
relationships because they expect others to meet
their special needs. Borderline personalities are
characterized by instability of identity, self-
image, and relationships; they want to be alone
but fear abandonment; they are often moody and
depressed and, in severe cases, self-destructive
and suicidal. Reid, W.H. and M.G. Weise, The DSM-
III-R Training Guide, New York: Brunner/Mazel,
1989. See also Dutton, D., "Trauma Symptoms and
PTSD-like Profiles in Perpetrators of Intimate
Abuse," Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8 (2)(1995):
299-316; and Maiuro, R., T.S. Cahn, P.P.
Vitaliano, B.C. Wagner, and J.B. Zegree, "Anger,
Hostility, and Depression in Domestically Violent
Versus Generally Assaultive and Nonviolent Control
Subjects," Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56 (1) (1988): 17-23.

20. Browne, Saunders, and Straecker, "Process-
Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter." 

21. See Dutton, "Patriarchy and Wife Assault."

22. Adams, D., "Treatment Models for Men Who
Batter: A Profeminist Analysis," in Feminist
Perspectives on Wife Abuse, ed. K. Yllo and M.
Bograd, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988:
176-199.

23. Adams, "Treatment Models for Men Who Batter,"
176-177.

24. Hamberger, K.L. and J. E. Hastings,
"Recidivism Following Spouse Abuse Abatement
Counseling: Treatment Program Implications,"
Violence and Victims, 5 (3) (1990): 160.

25. Information provided by Roland Mauiro.

26. Hamberger, K.L. and J. E. Hastings, "Court-
Mandated Treatment of Men Who Assault Their
Partner: Issues, Controversies, and Outcomes," in
Legal Responses to Wife Assault, ed. Z. Hilton,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993: 188-
229.

27. Tolman, R. M. and D. G. Saunders, "The Case
for the Cautious Use of Anger Control With Men Who
Batter," Response, 11 (2) (1988): 15-20.

28. Tolman and Saunders articulate this concern,
while accepting anger management as part of a
cognitive-behavioral intervention: "The use of
anger control techniques with batterers is
problematic when battering is framed exclusively
as an anger problem, when the issues of dominance
and control of women by men are ignored in
treatment, and when practitioners fail to address
societal reinforcements for battering." Tolman and
Saunders, "The Case for the Cautious Use of Anger
Control With Men Who Batter," 19. See also Ptacek,
J., "The Clinical Literature on Men Who Batter, A
Review and Critiques," in Family Abuse and Its
Consequences: New Directions in Research, ed. B.T.
Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick, and M.A.
Straus, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1986:
149-162.

29. Dutton, D., The Domestic Assault of Women:
Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives
(revised), Vancouver: University of British
Columbia, 1995.

30. Two studies showing a recurrence of violence
among program participants who said they used
anger management to reduce their violence are:
Gondolf, E., "Men Who Batter: How They Stop Their
Abuse," Paper presented at the Second National
Conference for Family Violence Researchers,
Durham, NC, 1984; and Kelso, D. and L. Personette,
Domestic Violence and Treatment Services for
Victims and Abusers, Anchorage: Altam, 1985.

31. Daniel O'Leary's studies comparing single-sex
group and couples-group interventions were unable
to retain couples when the batterer had a history
of severe violence. Rosenbaum, A. and K. D.
O'Leary, "The Treatment of Marital Violence," in
Clinical Handbook of Marital Therapy, ed. N.S.
Jacobsen and A.S. Gurman, New York: Guilford,
1986. Gondolf studied 12 men who had been through
a men's group program and were deemed to be fully
reformed (versus 38 who were not). Several of
these highly motivated men had sought professional
help before coming to the batterer program but
they had found no improvement after individual or
couples therapy. According to their self-reports,
the batterer group they subsequently attended gave
them what they needed to stop battering. Gondolf
and Hanneken, "The Gender Warrior."

32. Edelson, J. L. and M. Syers, "Relative
Effectiveness of Group Treatments for Men Who
Batter," Social Work Research and Abstracts, (June
1990): 10-17.

33. According to social learning theory, a
retaliatory attack should decrease future abuse.
However, two national surveys found that when
women resist violently, the batterer's violence
usually increases in severity. This result is
consistent with the feminist view that the intent
of physical abuse is to punish resistance and
disobedience. Bowker, L., Ending the Violence: A
Guidebook Based on the Experience of 1,000
Battered Wives, Holmes Beach, FL: Learning
Publications, 1986; Feld, S. L. and M.A. Straus,
"Escalation and Desistance From Wife Assault in
Marriage," in Physical Violence in American
Families, ed. M.A. Straus, and R.J. Gelles, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1990: 489-505.

34. Edelson and Syers, "Relative Effectiveness of
Group Treatments for Men Who Batter." This article
reports an experiment in which all comers to a
program were assigned to a brief or intense
intervention and to one of three models: the
Duluth "educational" model, a self-help group, and
a combined group process-educational model. The
results showed no difference between the brief and
intense programs, except for the few men of color
who were less likely to recidivate if they
completed the long program; the structured
feminist educational model was found to be most
effective.

35. Gondolf, E., "Multi-Site Evaluation of
Batterer Intervention Systems: A Summary of
Preliminary Findings," Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic
Addiction Training Institute, October 24, 1996.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o Most interventions employ a mixture of theories
in their curriculums, the most common of which is
a psychoeducational model that encourages
profeminist attitude change while building
interpersonal skills using cognitive-behavioral
techniques.

o Three categories of theories of domestic
violence dominate the field. Each locates the
cause of domestic violence differently, and each
theory leads practitioners to employ different
approaches to batterer intervention:

-- Society and Culture. Social and cultural
theories attribute the problem to social structure
and cultural norms and values that endorse or
tolerate the use of violence by men against women
partners. The feminist model of intervention
educates men concerning the impact of these social
and cultural norms and attempts to resocialize
them emphasizing nonviolence and equality in
relationships.

-- The Family. Family-based theories of domestic
violence focus on the structure of the family,
interpersonal interactions within the family, and
the social isolation of families. The family
systems model of intervention focuses on
developing healthy communication skills with a
goal of family preservation and may use couples
therapy, a treatment approach prohibited by 20
State standards and -- guidelines regulating
batterer intervention (to protect the safety of
the victim).

-- The Individual. Psychological theories
attribute domestic violence to personality
disorders, the batterer's social environment
during childhood, biological disposition, or
attachment disorders. Psychotherapeutic
interventions target individual problems and/or
build cognitive skills to help the batterer
control violent behaviors.

o Both feminist educational and cognitive-
behavioral interventions can be compatible with
the goals of the criminal justice system --
protecting the victim as well as rehabilitating
the offender. However, feminist educational
programs offer some advantages. By contrast,
family systems interventions conflict with
criminal justice goals by failing to identify a
victim and a perpetrator, an identification the
law requires.

--------------------------------

The Language of Batterer Intervention

The shift in providers of help to batterers and
their partners from psychotherapists to feminist
social activists to professional mental health
providers has created tensions in the field that
are exhibited in the language of batterer
interventions. Criminal justice professionals need
to be aware of the connotations of various terms
so that they can communicate effectively with
service providers.

For example, the term "domestic violence" itself
has a gender-neutral connotation. A number of
feminists, seeing a link with other violence
against women and noting the severity of injuries
inflicted on women by male partners, prefer such
terms as "wife abuse" and "woman abuse."2 Programs
based on feminist theories of battering are often
described as "profeminist," indicating male
support for feminist goals. Mental health
professionals may talk about "counselors" or
"therapists" providing "treatment" to "clients,"
while profeminist "facilitators" or "teachers"
provide an "intervention" to "batterers" using a
didactic format described as "classes." Feminist-
based programs object especially to the word
"treatment" and may not consider rehabilitation
the program's primary goal, as Red Crowley of
Atlanta's Men Stopping Violence program explains:

Let's start with the word treatment. We do not see
our work as therapy. Battering is the natural
outgrowth of patriarchal values. We want to change
those values. Batterers' intervention classes
serve a number of purposes: they, like shelters,
make visible what has been systematically
concealed, that is, the horrendous problem of
violence against women; create an opportunity to
engage the community and the criminal justice
system in the effort to stop the violence; and
contribute to research. Giving men who want to
change the opportunity to do so is just one
purpose of the intervention.

The three most widely used intervention approaches
-- "educational" or "psychoeducational classes,"
"couples therapy," and "group process" -- are each
associated with a theory of the cause of domestic
violence. Thus, "educational programs" are most
often based on feminist theory; "couples therapy"
may suggest a link with family systems theory; and
"group process" programs base their work on either
psychodynamic or cognitive behavioral theories.
Some practitioners -- especially those with
eclectic programming -- may use terms
interchangeably; others harbor strong objections
to mislabeling their approach and consider some
terms to have great symbolic meaning. Criminal
justice professionals need to be sensitive to the
language used by intervention providers and to ask
practitioners to explain the importance of
unfamiliar terminology.

--------------------------------

Attachment Abuse

A small number of practitioners base batterer
interventions on psychological theories of
attachment, affect, and individuation. These
interventions consider battering to be "attachment
abuse" -- that is, abusive behaviors toward
intimates arising from the individual's insecure
attachment to his or her caregivers as a child.
Attachment theory describes two broad categories
of attachment relationships: secure attachments
that result from the caregiver's responsiveness to
the child's emotional and physical needs, and a
range of insecure attachment patterns that may
develop if a child's emotional and physical needs
are not met by caregivers. Insecure attachments in
childhood may lead, in adult relationships, to
emotional distress, anxiety, anger, depression,
and emotional detachment when the specter of loss
or separation arises in an intimate relationship.
These feelings may lead to attachment abuse.

Batterer interventions based on theories of
attachment, such as the Compassion Workshop (see
chapter 4), seek to enhance the batterers' ability
to regulate their own emotions and to stimulate a
sense of "compassion" for both themselves and
their intimates (partners, children, and elders)
using cognitive behavior techniques that are
designed to interrupt the batterers' violent
emotional response to guilt, shame, and fear of
abandonment.

--------------------------------

Controversial Approaches to Batterer Intervention

The following approaches, although commonly used,
are controversial. Criminal justice professionals
referring batterers to programs that feature these
techniques must be careful to learn how these
approaches are being integrated into the programs
and be wary of programs using these methods as
their primary intervention.

Anger Management

While some researchers have suggested that a small
percentage of battering may be attributable to a
psychological disorder involving uncontrollable
rage,[25] the "anger management" model attributes
battering to out-of-control (rather than
uncontrollable) anger. Anger management programs
offer a short-term intervention that teaches
batterers to recognize the physiological signs of
anger and to then implement relaxation techniques
to defuse the anger.[26] The intervention may also
teach stress management and communication
skills.[27] Many batterer treatment providers
disavow the single-focus "anger management"
treatment, instead incorporating anger management
as one component of their intervention, sometimes
under another name.

Critics have raised several concerns about the
anger management approach -- even as a component
of more comprehensive treatment:

o Anger management programs address a single cause
of battering, ignoring other, perhaps -- more
profound, causes.[28]

o According to the feminist model, although they
may claim to feel out of control, batterers -- are
not out of control: battering is a decision, a
choice. The social learning model adds that --
batterers choose to use or threaten violence
because of its effectiveness in controlling their
-- partners. The violence persists because it is
rewarded.

o Anger management programs teach batterers
nonviolent ways to control their partners. If --
the underlying issue of batterer control of the
victim is not addressed, critics maintain, men--
will misuse the techniques used to "control" anger
-- stress management and communication skills --
to continue to control the victim. For example, a
batterer could refuse his -- childcare
responsibilities on the grounds that it is
stressful.

o According to "misattribution of arousal" theory,
men learn to label all strong emotional states --
as anger when they are, in fact, experiencing
feelings of betrayal or hurt.

o Interventions therefore need to focus on
identifying the underlying emotion men are feeling
-- in situations in which they batter rather than
on means of controlling the mislabeled anger.[29]

o Two studies of anger management interventions
that were parts of comprehensive batterer
treatment programs found that men who completed
the programs but whose violence continued reported
that they had used anger management techniques to
attempt to control their violence, whereas men who
were successful in avoiding violence after the
program said they ended their abuse through
empathy, a redefinition of manhood, and
cooperative decisionmaking.[30]

Finally, some practitioners are concerned that any
short-term, single-focus approach can be dangerous
because it gives victims, judges, and batterers
the illusion that the problem has been solved.
Some practitioners feel that the availability of
brief, inexpensive anger management programs even
undermines the credibility of the more difficult,
lengthy, and expensive treatments other programs
provide. One-time "Saturday Afternoon Special"-
style anger management programs arouse particular
concern among practitioners who feel that such
short-term programs trivialize the severity of the
problem in the eyes of the batterer and are
unlikely to have any deterrent effect.

Individual and Couples Counseling

Many practitioners disapprove of -- and at least
20 State standards and guidelines expressly
prohibit -- couples counseling for batterers. In
addition, a number of program directors disapprove
of individual counseling as the sole intervention
for battering. Group work is considered important
in helping abusers to overcome their denial by
hearing other men acknowledge and deal with their
behavior, and to break the isolation that is
considered part of the syndrome of abuse.

Although systematic research comparing couples and
group interventions has not been conducted,[31]
anecdotal evidence and the beliefs of providers
(many of whom serve on committees to draft or
approve State standards or guidelines) have
limited the utilization of couples therapy for
domestic violence. The practitioners' disapproval
is based on a belief that victims of abuse are
intimidated and cannot fully participate in
therapy in the presence of their abusers. If
victims do reveal the batterer's violence or
disclose other problems, they face the threat of
reprisal. Restrictions on couples therapy and
individual psychotherapy for battering are a point
of contention between feminist-oriented batterer
intervention providers and mental health providers
in many communities.

Self-Help Groups: Batterers Anonymous

Self-help batterer groups are modeled on
Alcoholics Anonymous and Parents Anonymous.
Member-run support groups are facilitated by
former batterers who have been nonviolent for at
least a year.[32] Although there are some ground
rules and facilitators may introduce specific
topics, the approach is unstructured, with members
setting the agenda, usually addressing their
personal concerns.

Self-help or support groups are an accepted model
of follow-up for batterers who have completed a
program and want continued support to prevent
relapse, to continue the change process, or to
have a place to address ongoing problems. Self-
help groups are controversial as an initial
intervention, however, because it is questionable
whether former batterers -- especially those who
have been nonviolent for only a year -- are
qualified to conduct groups, unless they have been
extensively involved with a program, have been
trained, and are supervised. In addition,
facilitators tend to use an aggressive, even
belligerent, style of confrontation that more
traditional programs view as inappropriate
modeling of antagonistic behavior that borders on
abuse. By contrast, other professionals are
concerned that support groups run by former
batterers may be insufficiently confrontational
about members' excuses for violence and too
supportive of batterers' hostility toward women.

--------------------------------

Chapter 3: Pioneers in Batterer Intervention:
Program Models

This chapter provides an overview of program
services and procedures in five communities
visited for this report. The chapter's primary
focus is on larger mainstream batterer
interventions. The following chapter, "Current
Trends in Batterer Intervention," discusses
smaller specialized interventions in detail (see
box, "Selection of Programs Studied," and appendix
B, a listing of individuals interviewed at each
site).

No mainstream program approach or curriculum has
yet been proven to be more effective in reducing
recidivism than any other.[1] As a result, many
program directors and criminal justice
professionals stress structure over content; they
believe that regardless of a program's philosophy
or methods, any responsible intervention that
requires weekly contact can help contain
batterers' abuse through close monitoring of their
behavior (see chapter 5, "Criminal Justice
Response").[2] According to Andrew Klein, chief
probation officer for the Quincy, Massachusetts,
District Court, "If only appropriate clients are
referred -- people who know they did wrong, have
some motivation to change, are under external
pressure to change, and are sober -- if the
program monitors behavior, not attitude, and if
the program lasts long enough, then the content
doesn't matter. . . . To be considered effective,
the program must stop the battering and keep
offenders from battering again for at least one
year."

Program Procedures

The following discussion draws on program
practices at the five sites with special emphasis
on issues of common concern.

Intake and Assessment

The batterer's first contact with the program
occurs when he arranges for an intake interview.
At this time, the client signs release forms that
give the program permission to contact his
probation officer and his partner. The program
then notifies the probation office that the client
has chosen it for treatment. (See appendix D for
sample intake and assessment forms.) 

The first step of the intervention is the intake
assessment, a process that can span one to eight
weekly sessions.[3] The initial session may be
done as an individual interview or as part of a
group orientation. Intake sessions serve several
purposes:

o to get the client to agree with the terms and
conditions of treatment and to sign the program
contract;

o to begin to assess the nature and extent of the
-- batterer's abusive behavior; and

o to screen for other problems such as substance -
- abuse, mental illness, and illiteracy.

In addition to specific questions about domestic
violence, the assessment typically includes
questions about the batterer's family history,
propensity for violence outside the family, and
substance abuse. Ideally, the session begins to
foster rapport between the clinician and the
batterer, in addition to initiating the actual
intervention. For example, details about the
nature of the abuse are often gleaned through
questions regarding the first, the most recent,
and the most severe battering incidents.
Describing this behavior in detail can increase
the batterer's awareness of the extent of his
violence, and this can form a foundation for
later, more in-depth discussions of the abuse and
its consequences. Similarly, programs usually ask
about a range of behaviors that are
psychologically or sexually abusive. This
questioning helps the batterer broaden his
definition of abuse.

Programs vary in how clinical their assessments
are and to what extent they measure the batterer's
psychological makeup in an effort to identify
other problems that could interfere with the
intervention. Some programs screen for possible
problems by using simple checklists and then
referring the client for formal psychological
evaluation if a substance abuse or mental health
problem is suspected. Other programs, such as
AMEND and The Third Path, use standardized
instruments like the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory (MCMI) to do clinical assessments
themselves. The director of one of the AMEND
programs4 explains, "We use the MCMI both as a
diagnostic tool and a treatment planning tool, and
to start thinking about the majority of our
clients who have personality disturbances as
falling along a continuum from mild personality
dysfunction to more pronounced conditions."

Programs may refer batterers who are found to have
other psychological problems, like clinical
depression, elsewhere for psychiatric treatment or
individual counseling. However, referrals are not
considered a substitute for the batterer
intervention program. Rather, psychotherapy is
delivered concurrently with the batterer
intervention, as is also typically the case when
substance abuse is the problem. Programs try not
to screen out batterers with multiple problems as
long as they comply with the concurrent treatment.
For example, batterers who are clinically
depressed may continue in the program as long as
they take their psychiatric medication, while
batterers with substance abuse problems must
remain sober and submit to random urine screenings
or breathalizer tests. In the Quincy,
Massachusetts, District Court, for example,
batterers must take weekly urine tests. The
batterer pays $5 per test, but the probation
office will pay if the offender cannot.

Many programs do deny services to certain
batterers. One of the most common reasons for
turning batterers away at intake is if they are
part of a cultural or language group that another
program can serve better. While established
programs are striving to develop the culturally
sensitive methods discussed in chapter 4, "Current
Trends in Batterer Intervention," other programs
have chosen to develop alliances with grassroots
organizations serving specific cultural
communities, such as non-English-speaking
immigrants. Family Services of Seattle, for
example, refers Spanish-speaking batterers to a
local organization formed to serve Hispanic
immigrants, and it refers batterers in same-sex
relationships to a local gay and lesbian
counseling agency. EMERGE, on the other hand,
offers special in-house groups for African
American male batterers and for lesbian batterers,
and it has Latino and Asian American counselors on
staff to serve batterers from these cultural
groups.

Another common reason for rejecting clients at
intake is unwillingness or inability to pay.
Intake fees may be $50 or more. Rather than pay,
many clients prefer to return to probation or the
court to request a change in their conditions. To
get batterers past this initial barrier to
treatment, Sid Hoover, supervisor of Seattle's
Municipal Probation Domestic Violence Unit, offers
"especially worthy" batterers a limited-time
discount coupon to reduce the cost of intake from
$45 to $25. Family Services of Seattle, one of
several local interventions that receive city
funds to reduce the cost of providing services to
indigent clients, allows the probation office to
designate which clients will be offered reduced-
rate intake. (See chapter 4, "Current Trends in
Batterer Intervention," for a discussion of
program fees and indigence.) According to Hoover,
"Getting people into intake is half the hurdle; if
you can get them into the intake, their fear about
the whole enterprise starts to decline. Their
comfort level goes up because they've been in
there. They've seen the people, they realize that
it's relatively painless, and the program people
aren't dehumanizing them."

Some programs consider a batterer inappropriate
for treatment if he unequivocally denies that he
committed any violence. A probation officer in
Seattle noted batterers' difficulty in adjusting
to their new roles as court-mandated clients:
"We're kind of breaking the news to them -- you're
going to a DV treatment program -- so they can
start to turn themselves from defendants into
health care consumers. They've got to switch hats
from fighting the system to taking responsibility
for their life." At intake, the batterer has just
been referred from the criminal justice system
where, in the role of defendant, he was expected
to insist on his innocence. Now that he has agreed
to a plea bargain, it is no longer appropriate for
him to deny his guilt. The batterer may not have
much time to make this adjustment -- some courts
give the defendant less than a week to make
contact with the program. The lack of time to
change his mindset, combined with the batterer's
tendency to minimize and deny his violence, forms
the first obstacle to treatment. Apart from
information gathering and initial indoctrination
to program rules, overcoming this obstacle is the
primary task of the intake session. In Des Moines,
the intake counselor uses the police report to
confront the batterer with the facts of the case.
Other programs postpone confronting batterers
until treatment begins.

Victim Contacts

A number of States require that batterer programs
contact partners (see appendix A, "State Standards
Matrix"). At a minimum, partner notification is
needed at four points:

o when the batterer begins attending the program;

o if and when he has been terminated from
treatment -- for noncompliance;

o when he has completed the program; and

o if an imminent threat to victim safety arises
(seebelow).

Programs with a strong advocacy policy will
typically contact the partner every two to three
months as long as the batterer remains in the
program.

Since batterers typically minimize or deny their
abusive behavior, assessments and ongoing
monitoring often involve separate interviews with
the victim to gain additional information about
the relationship. As part of the client contract,
batterers may therefore be required to sign
releases that permit counselors to contact current
and past partners. (Some States, like Iowa, avoid
the need for consent by exempting counselors from
ordinary client confidentiality requirements when
it comes to victim contacts.) A trained victim
liaison usually interviews victims by telephone
for reasons of safety and efficiency. The liaison
assures the victim of absolute confidentiality;
nothing she says will be repeated to her partner
or his counselor without her consent. At EMERGE,
the victim liaisons make it clear to victims that
the program's primary concern is the safety of
victims and their children. If the victim is
willing to discuss the abuse, the advocate may
also ask about the duration, frequency, and
severity of the abuse in order to assist in the
batterer's treatment. However, liaisons make clear
that furthering the batterer's treatment is only a
secondary goal of the victim contact. A victim
liaison from AMEND expressed a similar view:

When I first started working here, we were getting
more background on the batterer from his partner,
such as what his childhood was like. That was
helpful for the therapist in treating him, but at
the same time I don't think it was so helpful for
her to have to dredge up all that information
about him. So we've moved away from that in our
conversation and started talking more about the
victim and her plans and trying to educate her
about domestic violence.

In addition to helping with safety planning, the
victim liaison can describe to the victim the
basic features of the batterer intervention
program as well as its limitations (see below).

Victim liaisons (many of whom are called
"advocates") interviewed for this report expressed
surprise that most of the partners they contact
have never sought services from a battered women's
agency. These victims come to light only as a
result of legal intervention with their abusers;
they may not even be aware that services are
available to them. Contacting the partner when the
batterer enters the program therefore offers the
opportunity to raise the victim's awareness of her
situation and to begin to help her think about her
own and her children's safety. As the director of
battered women's services in Des Moines added,
"For every batterer who gets arrested, his victim
will have some sort of contact from battered
women's services, whether it's legal advocacy,
like warning of his release from jail or
explaining pretrial hearings, or basic safety
planning."

Because this contact may be the first chance the
victim has ever had to tell her story to a helping
professional, it is crucial that the contact be
handled sensitively by another woman who has
experience working with battered women. The EMERGE
partner pamphlet lists the following examples of
questions to ask the victim:

o Are you always trying to second-guess your
partner to avoid an argument?

o What does your partner do when he loses his
temper?

o Do you have holes in your walls or broken
possessions from times when your partner lost his
temper?

o Has he ever hurt you physically or threatened
you?

o What would it take for you to get away?

o Do you know that there are many other women --
who have experienced what you are going through -
- and that help is available?

The House of Ruth in Baltimore invites victims to
a separate open house to discuss the program's
goals and methods and to provide an opportunity
for victims to learn more about the House of
Ruth's victim and children's services, including
legal counseling and referral to other service
agencies. The following two sections highlight
program techniques for working with victims.

Raising Victim Awareness

In order to develop rapport with the victim, the
victim liaison must affirm the victim's
experiences and communicate respect for the
victim's right to make her own decisions. The
victim liaison shows concern for the victim's
safety by speaking to her when the batterer is not
present and assuring her complete confidentiality.
Victim advocacy starts by offering support,
assuring the victim that other women have also
faced similar circumstances. "Mainly we try to
focus the conversations on her, try to reach her
that way," one liaison said. "We ask her what
she'd like us to address -- whether it's the kids,
or continued abuse, or drug and alcohol issues."
The victim liaison makes sure that the victim
knows that services are available to her and tells
her how she can contact the local battered women's
shelter and support group. While stressing that
the interview is voluntary, the liaison asks if
the victim is willing to describe the incident
that resulted in her partner's entering the
program. The victim liaison tries to learn all she
can not only about the extent of the physical
violence but also about any emotional and sexual
abuse. Just as the intake worker tries to broaden
the batterer's definition of abuse, the victim
liaison attempts to help the victim become aware
of the broader context of the abuse. She lets her
know that other victims have reported similar
experiences of being humiliated, berated,
threatened, or intimidated into complying with
their partner's wishes.

Some program group leaders have difficulty
convincing some victims from other cultures that
they have a right to live without violence and to
be treated as their husband's equal. An Asian
counselor described the dilemma of being an Asian
immigrant and a victim: "For Asians, the family is
the most important thing, not the individual, as
it is for most Americans. The Asian culture
believes that talking to someone outside the
family about private matters shames the family."
For those coming from countries with strong
patriarchal values that completely disempower
women, programs take pains to educate the victim
about American laws and cultural norms.

Another important reason to contact the victim
when the batterer enters treatment is to guard
against false hopes that the program can make him
change. The program stresses that it is up to the
batterer to take responsibility for his violent
and controlling behaviors, and acknowledges that
many batterers are not willing to stop being
abusive. The liaison tells the victims (just as
counselors tell the batterer) that there is no
quick fix -- change takes a long time and requires
a genuine commitment by the batterer. Victim
liaisons assure the partner that she is in no way
responsible for making him stop and that the
responsibility to change is the batterer's and his
alone.

Making independent contact with the victim also
ensures that she gets accurate information about
the program's goals and methods. Particularly
during the first few weeks of treatment, batterers
often use the program to manipulate the victim,
distorting what has been said in group to blame
her for the abuse. For example, one victim liaison
from AMEND recalls, "The therapist got into
describing what bipolar is. Then these guys go
home and say to the victim 'My therapist said
you're manic depressive,' allowing the focus to
shift to the victim rather than remain on his
behavior." In explaining the general goals of the
intervention and the standard techniques the
batterer will be taught, the liaison can
circumvent the batterer's distortions beforehand.
Victim liaisons also warn the victim that
batterers often use their entry into treatment as
a justification for pressuring their partners to
stay in the relationship and that such pressure is
another sign of continuing nonphysical abuse.

Ongoing Advocacy and Safety Planning

The victim liaison has the difficult task of
balancing cautions against false hopes with
respect for the victim's right to make her own
decisions. Should the victim decide that she wants
to remain with the batterer, the liaison needs to
respect that choice but still help her plan for
her safety. One victim liaison usually tells the
victim, "Well, you know we can't guarantee he's
going to change. . . . So what are you going to do
just in case he doesn't change?" The liaison
advises the victim to identify the absolutely
essential items she would need if she suddenly had
to leave home. Then the liaison helps her develop
a plan to have these things available, preferably
through a trusted neighbor, relative, or friend.
For instance, the victim might plan to give
someone an extra set of her car keys, copies of
her and her children's birth certificates, and the
originals of other important documents and
prescriptions.

Safety planning can also be more long term. Victim
liaisons may continue to support the victim over
the course of the batterer's treatment, and this
support may help her to prepare to leave him. On
the advice of the victim liaison, programs like
EMERGE, AMEND, Family Services of Seattle, and
Zegree, Ellner and Berrysmith all agree that they
sometimes maintain a noncompliant batterer in
treatment in order to give the victim extra time
to leave safely. In addition, batterers are also
occasionally retained in treatment as a form of
supervision and monitoring intended to increase
victim safety. For example, a liaison at AMEND
noted, "There are cases we have kept on that we
felt we could have terminated because we knew that
there was going to be no success in rehabilitating
the batterer. But it was better -- for victim
safety -- for us to have some containment, because
at least we knew then what was going on with
them."

While all the programs visited for this report had
some form of contact with victims over the course
of the batterer's treatment, some victim liaisons
oppose this blending of batterer and victim
services. A battered women's advocate in Seattle
suggested that "the 'victim informant' position is
difficult for victims. If the victim gives [the
program] information about the batterer's abuse or
other lapses, the batterer may retaliate against
her. Her abuser may then see it as her fault --
not his -- that he has to keep going to the
program." Other victim advocates and liaisons
agree that contacting victims can be a delicate
matter, as an AMEND liaison explained:

A lot of times we get information that we can't
confront him on -- for example, the victim will
call and say, "He's been drinking, but I don't
want you to confront him on it. I just wanted you
to know." So then we tell the therapist, and the
therapist tries to figure out how he can
incorporate this information into the guy's
treatment without violating her confidentiality
and safety. And some therapists can do that better
than others, finding a back way of confronting him
and getting it to come out another way. 

Because of these concerns for the victim, some
State standards prohibit or discourage batterer
programs from contacting the victim directly.

Orientation

Established programs have adapted their
interventions over the years to continue the
assessment process during the initial phase of
group intervention. New clients meet together for
one or more orientation sessions during which the
reeducation process begins; at the same time,
counselors use the sessions to make a more
accurate appraisal of the extent of the batterer's
violence and substance abuse than may have been
possible during intake.[5] For example, the
Arapahoe County, Colorado, chapter of AMEND
requires that its clients be alcohol- and drug-
free during the entire six-week orientation period
as a test of their sobriety. Batterers who do not
comply with the abstinence rule are placed in
special groups for substance-abusing batterers.
The group leaders, certified both as batterer
group leaders and chemical dependency counselors,
provide drug counseling, such as relapse
prevention techniques, in combination with the
standard AMEND intervention. The program typically
requires random urine screens and the use of
Antabuse.

AMEND also added alcohol education to its
orientation curriculum because some clients have
drinking problems that neither their probation
officers nor the intake assessment has brought to
light. As one of AMEND's co-directors explains,
"Because a lot of our people have alcohol and drug
problems, we'll go through a basic kind of alcohol
education [during everyone's orientation]. . . .
One of our goals that first four to six weeks is
to find out who has a problem and get them dried
out."

Besides improving the program's ability to assess
the client, the orientation serves to establish
rapport between participants and counselors. Staff
who conduct orientation seek to reduce the
batterers' initial defensiveness. As one program
director put it, "We try to reassure them that
we're here to help them, not to beat them up. We
try to form an alliance with each person . . .
suggesting that maybe there are things he can
learn here to improve his relationships with his
partner and kids."

The session then turns to the program goals and
the rules for participating in the group. Some of
the rules relate to attendance, punctuality, and
payment of fees; others are related specifically
to the group process, such as confidentiality,
abstaining from alcohol and other drugs 24 hours
before each group session, and participating
constructively in group discussions. Other rules
may prohibit sexist or degrading language and
insulting or intimidating counselors or other
group members, and require waiting in turn to
speak. Finally, the program explicitly states the
expectation that batterers will refrain from all
violent, intimidating, or threatening behavior
toward their partners.

In addition to indoctrinating new members about
program rules, orientation sessions are used to
teach batterers the underlying assumptions of the
program. 

o Counselors establish a broad definition of abuse
that includes psychological and sexual abuse.

o To motivate batterers to change, counselors
highlight the consequences of the batterer's
abusive behavior for his children -- often the
best motivation to change.

o Counselors also begin to build empathy for their
partners among batterers by discussing the
consequences of abuse for the victim.

o Depending on the treatment approach, these
sessions may also cover societal beliefs and norms
that support violence, place physical abuse along
a continuum of other controlling behaviors, or
focus on the batterer's typical thought patterns
preceding an abusive incident.

Two of the eight beginner classes, as they are
called, of EMERGE are devoted to demonstrating
that there is no "quick fix" to domestic violence.
Batterers learn to acknowledge the long-term
effects of their abuse on their partners and the
strategies they have used to keep her in the
relationship. The codirector of EMERGE notes that
group members can readily list such quick-fix
strategies as apologizing, buying her gifts, and
even enrolling in a treatment program, but they
are less able to offer longer-term solutions that
require them to take responsibility for their own
violence and respect their partner's wishes.[11]

Orientation sessions tend to be more like didactic
classes than later sessions, which may take on a
more therapeutic tone. One reason for the lecture-
type format is to maintain order among new members
who would sidetrack group discussions by turning
attention away from their own behavior with
complaints about their partner or the criminal
justice system. Another, more subtle, reason for
the structured format is to firmly establish norms
for how to participate in group discussions before
members graduate to more informal groups. The
sessions also set a tone of active participation,
making clear that clients will not be allowed to
attend class without really participating in group
discussions.

Finally, the orientation phase -- especially if it
is extended over a number of weeks -- can also
serve as a screening device for the more
therapeutic ongoing groups. By requiring
attendance at six to eight intake group sessions
as a prerequisite for continued participation,
programs like Family Services of Seattle and
EMERGE of Quincy weed out more disruptive clients,
who would eventually drop out regardless of the
intervention. Remaining in the orientation
sessions demonstrates a commitment to a long-term
solution to their pattern of abuse.

Most of the programs visited require that each
batterer admit to his violence by describing to
the group the abusive incident that led to his
enrollment. As one program director explains, "If
a man insists that he has been falsely charged, I
will send him away saying, 'If you haven't done
anything wrong, you need a lawyer, not a batterers
program. This program is for men who have a
violence problem, not a legal problem.' "

If the batterer refuses to admit wrongdoing, or
shows patterns of disruptive or resistant behavior
during class, he is usually dropped from the
program at that point. The requirement that he
admit to his violence, combined with mandatory
attendance at multiple orientation sessions, sets
a minimum standard that all participants must meet
in order to continue in the program as a member of
an ongoing group.

Leaving the Program

Batterers may leave programs because they are
requested to terminate program attendance due to
noncooperation, violence, nonpayment of program
fees, or other failure to follow program rules;
because their probation has been revoked; or
because they have met the program's completion
criteria. Some programs offer aftercare for
program graduates.

Penalties for Noncompliance

Clients can fail a program in a number of ways.
The most common is a failure to attend group
regularly. Another is by violating crucial program
rules -- like being disruptive or aggressive in
group or coming to group under the influence of
alcohol. If the client was identified in the
assessment as having a substance abuse problem,
failure to follow through on a referral for
alcohol or other drug treatment (or continued use
of substances) would be another serious
infraction. Of course, violating a restraining
order or repeating any form of violence could also
be grounds for termination. (For a full discussion
of program communication with probation officers
and the courts, see chapter 4, "Current Trends in
Batterer Intervention.")

Programs may take a range of actions against a
client who has failed. Before resorting to
terminating the client, the program may issue a
warning or require the batterer to begin the
program again. For the majority of clients whose
treatment is court-ordered, the program reports
failure to attend or a resumption of violence to
their probation officer. For batterers with a
substance abuse problem, another reportable
violation condition may be failure to maintain
sobriety. For these clients, AMEND staff report
directly to the probation officer any indications
of any use, whether from random urine testing or
the client's or victim's reports. With the
cooperation of probation and the courts, the
client's time in treatment may be extended.

A victim advocate from AMEND emphasized the
importance of support from the probation officer
in court-mandated cases: "When we want to restart
them, sometimes [probation officers] aren't real
supportive of that, and that really hampers our
decision-making process a lot. Or, I know that
this probation officer may not be able to extend
treatment because the judge isn't going to back up
the probation officer, so we have to terminate the
batterer." By contrast, when batterers reoffend in
Massachusetts, State standards require a six-month
extension of treatment. Even if the infraction is
less serious than repeated abuse, the violation
can be used to restart the treatment clock. A
court-ordered client of the Des Moines DAIS
program who has too many absences (missing 4
sessions in a 12-week period) is required to start
the program over again.

Programs are cautious about terminating a batterer
because of the danger it may pose to the victim.
However, they must send a clear message that
clients are required to make constructive use of
treatment in order to remain.12 Program staff are
also concerned that the victim not be lulled into
a false sense of security if the batterer attends
groups but does not try to change. Nonetheless,
programs ideally consult with the victim before
terminating a client. Programs may also need to
terminate a batterer who poses a threat to staff.
At AMEND, one batterer (who had been arrested for
holding his wife hostage and attempted murder)
turned his threats and anger on program staff and
the victim liaison when his wife informed him that
she had reported continued physical and sexual
abuse to an AMEND victim advocate. The batterer
was terminated, and program staff helped the
victim to move out-of-state.

Completion

While some programs use attendance as the sole
criterion for successful completion, Washington
State requires that each program have specific
exit criteria. Family Services' exit criteria
require the batterer to write a "responsibility
letter" and an "empathy letter."

o The batterer pretends he is writing the
responsibility letter to his partner and children
(if any), accepting full responsibility for his
abusive behavior and -- identifying and
acknowledging the painful consequences to them.

o In the empathy letter, the batterer writes as
though he were the victim, describing his feelings
(as the victim) about the abuse.

o The batterer then reads the letters aloud to the
group, although he decides whether to share them
with his family.

AMEND also makes a distinction between having
completed treatment by attendance only and a more
successful discharge. If a batterer has attended a
minimum of 36 weekly sessions, he has fulfilled
his sentence and is dismissed with an
"administrative" discharge. If, however, he has
accomplished his treatment goals, remained sober,
and respected his partner's wishes for no contact,
if applicable, the client receives a successful or
"clinical" discharge. While either way the court-
mandated client is no longer required to attend
further treatment, the program's final report to
probation will indicate whether or not the
therapist believes the client has worked
successfully with the program. If the client
receives only an administrative discharge and
later reoffends, the court may sentence him to
jail rather than allow him to enter treatment
again.
Follow-up

Some programs offer follow-up or aftercare in the
form of ongoing support groups for clients who
complete the program successfully. Washington
State standards require a full year of contact
with the program, but only 26 weekly sessions, so
that programs offer monthly meetings as a separate
follow-up phase to the standard treatment.
Although not required to by State standards, the
Des Moines DAIS program offers a weekly support
group for men who have successfully completed its
16- or 24-week program. The program director is
committed to providing aftercare so that batterers
who have completed the program have the
opportunity to meet with other men who are
recovering from violence, to get support for
maintaining a nonviolent lifestyle, and to
continue to practice the conflict resolution and
anger management skills the program taught them.
One program director voiced concern, however, that
most men are not being trained to deal with the
hypothetical "ultimate situation" that could
trigger relapse for them: "Batterers need to be
prepared, to know 'What would you do? Who would
you call for help?' " Relapse prevention and
support for former batterers is important,
according to AMEND director Rob Gallup, because
"often the perpetrator is as isolated as his
partner."

Program Content: Established Interventions Using
Weekly Groups

The group modality is the intervention of choice
in dealing with batterers for several reasons.[13] 

o The group combats the implicit social approval
of abusive behavior that many batterers perceive
from family and friends. By sending consistent
messages that do not condone any form of abuse and
encourage nonviolent alternatives, the group
serves as a healthy support system for batterers
who wish to change.

o Successful group members can serve as role
models to batterers who are just beginning to
confront their own violent behavior, helping to
break through a new member's minimization of his
abuse.

o By providing a new source of support, the group
reduces the batterer's excessive dependence on his
partner to meet all his emotional needs.

However, group leaders must be alert and ready to
intervene when batterers try to commiserate with
one another, forming unhealthy bonds that excuse
abusive behavior. As one set of group leaders
advised, "Be vigilant about male bonding --
batterers love to stick up for each other against
their partners."

Some programs are strictly structured, such as
those using the Duluth curriculum (described
below), prescribing the order in which topics are
to be addressed. Other programs give discretion to
group leaders to choose from a range of program
content, while confronting batterers' behavior
more directly. Program directors warned that some
leaders may resort to a more flexible approach
because they lack the skill to keep group
discussions focused on the planned curriculum. It
is important, therefore, to distinguish between a
flexible curriculum and uncontrolled digressions
from the set discussion schedule.

Whatever the structure or treatment approach, each
group session typically begins with a round-robin
style check-in, followed by the selected topic or
educational piece for the meeting, ending with
goal setting and check-outs. Check-ins are a way
to introduce new members to the group and
reinforce the program's focus on the batterer's
behavior. They can be brief (each person states
his name and one of the rules of the group) or
more lengthy (each member describes his most
recent or severe abusive behavior). In more
therapeutically oriented programs, the check-ins
can lead to discussions that take up the bulk of
the session. For example, the group may discuss
possible solutions to conflicts recounted by group
members. For more educational programs, the check-
ins are followed by a more structured presentation
from the curriculum. Regardless of emphasis, at
the end of the session programs typically assign
homework that is designed to encourage each client
to apply the session's topics directly to his
life. Check-outs help participants summarize what
they learned and clarify their behavioral goals
for the coming week.

Accountability as the Foremost Goal

Most batterers deny or avoid accepting
responsibility for their actions -- that is, they
refuse to view battering as a choice. As a result,
one of the main goals of all reputable batterer
intervention programs is to get the batterer to
become accountable for his abusive behavior.[15]
The challenge of the intervention is to force the
batterer to acknowledge his violence in terms of
the full range of abusive acts he has committed,
thereby broadening his understanding of what
constitutes unacceptable behavior.

Program staff have divided the most common tactics
batterers use to avoid accountability into three
categories:

o denying the abuse ever happened ("I didn't lay a
hand on her; she made the whole thing up");

o minimizing the abuse, either by downplaying the
violent acts ("It was just a slap") or
underestimating its effects ("She bruises
easily"); and

o blaming the abuse on the victim ("She drove me
crazy"), drugs or alcohol ("I was drunk, I don't
remember anything"), or other life circumstances
("I was at the end of my rope 'cause I was working
16 hours a day").

Because these tactics are so common, group leaders
in nearly all programs watch for them and confront
batterers whenever they try to use them. For
example, some facilitators will use the police
report of the attack to bring the severity of the
batterer's actions into perspective. Group leaders
also guard against what they call "sidetracking,"
referring to batterers' attempts to turn the
discussion away from their behavior by complaining
about their partner, the criminal justice system,
or racial or social injustice (see chapter 4,
"Current Trends in Batterer Intervention"). As one
group leader suggested, "Don't get sucked into
their stories; only give them attention when they
talk about their behavior." Whatever the treatment
approach, batterer interventions keep the focus on
the batterer's behavior and its consequences.

Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques

The majority of programs visited for this report
incorporated cognitive-behavioral techniques into
their group interventions. As discussed in chapter
2, "The Causes of Domestic Violence," a common
intervention is to offer the batterer specific
tools that help him see that his acts of violence
are not uncontrollable outbursts but rather
foreseeable behavior patterns he can learn to
interrupt. Cognitive-behavioral techniques help
the batterer recognize how he stokes his own rage
through irrational "self-talk," the internal
dialogue that the batterer uses to build himself
up to an abusive incident.[16] Examining the
thoughts and feelings that precede the abuse helps
the batterer to realize that he did not just "lose
his temper." Rather, he felt that his partner had
disappointed him in some way, began telling
himself negative things about her, and then used
that negativity to justify his violence. If she is
ten minutes late coming home from work, for
example, he may tell himself, "She is seeing
another man, she is a slut, she's made a fool out
of me." He may have negative thoughts about what
his partner is saying or doing ("She's like a
broken record") or think of ways to blame her for
his violence ("She's really asking for it now").
The batterer repeats these negative thoughts to
himself until he no longer thinks of her as his
wife or girlfriend; she becomes an object that
failed to perform as expected, and so violence
becomes justified in his own mind.[17]

In brief, cognitive-behavioral techniques target
three elements:

o what the batterer thinks about prior to an
abusive incident;

o how the batterer feels, physically and
emotionally, as a result of these thoughts; 

o what the batterer does, such as yelling and
throwing things, that builds up to acts of
violence.[18]

The group helps members to recognize and interrupt
these thought patterns and the anger associated
with them. The batterer learns to use his negative
thoughts and feelings as cues to prevent future
violent episodes. When he notices himself
beginning the pattern -- thinking negatively about
his partner and starting to feel angry -- some
programs teach him to take a "time-out." This
gives him a chance to interrupt the internal
dialogues and substitute reality checks and
positive coping statements. At the same time, he
is taught to reduce his state of physiological
arousal through relaxation techniques (e.g., deep
breathing exercises, biofeedback) or
noncompetitive forms of physical exercise such as
walking or bicycling. However, rather than use
time-outs to reflect on their self-talk and reduce
their anger, some batterers misuse them as an
excuse to interrupt an argument. Victims advocates
point out that this is a good reason to have
ongoing contact with victims, to learn about and
confront such distortions illustrated by a
batterer who himself reported, "We have time-outs.
They're going great. She sits on the couch when I
tell her to." Several programs have developed
rules that are also explained to the partner to
make sure the batterer uses standard time-outs
constructively.[19] Rules include limits on the
length of the standard time-out, revisiting the
issue at stake at a mutually agreeable time later,
and not watching television or using alcohol or
other drugs while taking a time-out.[20] At
EMERGE, time-outs are not taught because,
according to co-director Susan Cayouette, "Time-
outs are still abusive to women -- they tell her,
'If I stay with you, I will be abusive.' "

The Duluth Curriculum: Issues of Power and Control
as Primary Targets

Many batterer intervention programs adhere to, or
borrow from, a psychoeducational and skills-
building curriculum that is a component of the
Duluth model. Developed in the early 1980's by the
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) of
Duluth, Minnesota, the model emphasizes the
importance of a coordinated community response to
battering and places battering within a broader
context of the range of controlling behaviors
illustrated in the "The Power and Control Wheel"
(see exhibit 1-1).[21] The wheel depicts how
physical violence is connected to male power and
control through a number of "spokes" or control
tactics: minimizing, denying, blaming; using
intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation,
children, male privilege, economic abuse, and
threats. According to the Duluth model, the
batterer maintains control over his partner
through constant acts of coercion, intimidation,
and isolation punctuated by periodic acts of
violence.

The curriculum is taught in classes that emphasize
the development of critical thinking skills around
eight themes: 1) nonviolence, 2) nonthreatening
behavior, 3) respect, 4) support and trust, 5)
honesty and accountability, 6) sexual respect, 7)
partnership, and 8) negotiation and fairness.
Depending on the total length of the program, two
or three sessions are devoted to each theme. The
first session of each theme begins with a video
vignette that demonstrates the controlling
behavior from that portion of the wheel.
Discussion revolves around the actions that the
batterer in the story used to control his partner;
the advantages he was trying to get out of the
situation; the beliefs he expressed that supported
his position; the feelings he was hiding through
his behavior; and the means he used to minimize,
deny, or blame the victim for his actions. At the
close of each session, the men are given homework:
to identify these same elements in an incident
when they exhibited similar controlling behaviors.
During subsequent sessions devoted to the theme,
each group member describes his own use of the
controlling behavior, why he used it, and what its
effects were. Alternative behaviors that can build
a healthier, egalitarian relationship are then
explored.

Putting the Duluth curriculum into practice
requires considerable skill on the part of group
leaders. One group observed for this report
strayed dramatically from the evening's agenda, as
members succeeded in sidetracking the discussion
away from their behavior onto complaints about the
curriculum and about their partners. Even when the
agenda is adhered to, the classroom-style format
can allow some members to sit back and not
participate in discussions or even reflect on
their behavior. Group leaders have to be vigilant
against both the active and passive ways batterers
avoid taking responsibility for their abuse, both
inside and outside of group. Furthermore,
directors of several programs noted that the tenor
of the group intervention varies substantially
depending on the style of the group leaders and
how they view their role (e.g., as educators who
teach new skills or as therapists who confront the
men's inappropriate behavior).

EMERGE and AMEND: More In-depth Group Counseling

Two other programs stand out for their longevity
and model reputations, EMERGE of Quincy,
Massachusetts, and AMEND of Denver, Colorado.
However, unlike the Duluth model, both programs
include more in-depth counseling in addition to
reeducation and skills building. Similarly, the
director of the DAIS program in Des Moines
expresses particular concern that its Duluth-style
program may not be enough to reform or deter more
high-risk or chronic offenders. In fact, the Des
Moines DAIS worked with the local domestic
violence coalition to secure a special waiver from
the State standards so that it could pilot test a
more therapeutic model with high-risk
offenders.[22]

The director of EMERGE argues that any treatment
that fails to span at least 4 to 6 months runs the
risk of never breaking through the batterer's
facade of compliance.[23] Many batterers, often
known for being manipulative and intelligent, can
readily adapt to a short-term intervention,
quickly learning to "talk the talk." If the
intervention is too short, it may end during this
"honeymoon" phase, leaving the provider satisfied
with a job seemingly well done but with the
abusive behavior fundamentally unchallenged and
unchanged. As a result, the EMERGE program lasts a
minimum of 48 weeks (including orientation). The
founders of AMEND believe chronic offenders may
require from one to five years of treatment to
genuinely change the abusive behavior,[24] with
their 36-week program constituting the minimum
period of time necessary. However, preliminary
findings from a multisite evaluation currently
under way for the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) do not support the notion that longer is
better: graduates from a 3-month intensive program
fared as well as those who completed 9 months of
treatment in terms of reoffenses at a 12-month
follow-up.[25]

The founders of both EMERGE and AMEND also argue
that psychoeducational approaches alone do not
address the true nature of the problem. If the
batterer's problem were simply a deficit in
skills, he would be far less functional in the
broader world outside the family. The director of
EMERGE argues, "Batterers know how to get along
with their bosses, for instance; they just don't
use these same social skills in their intimate
relationships."[26] Focusing solely on the
batterer's thoughts, feelings, and reactions -- by
teaching anger management techniques, for example
-- can inadvertently reinforce the batterer's
egocentric view of the world. As a result, EMERGE
and AMEND strive to balance cognitive-behavioral
techniques with confrontational group process to
force the batterer to accept responsibility for
his abusive behavior and its consequences.

While it is important to give batterers specific
tools to interrupt their abusive behavior
patterns, they need more than new skills. Like the
Duluth model, EMERGE and AMEND believe that
batterers need resocialization that convinces them
they do not have the right to abuse their partner,
a process AMEND refers to as "habilitating" the
batterer.[27] For AMEND, this means redressing
batterers' maladaptive moral development. For
EMERGE, as explained below, the focus is more on
the abusive relationship and the emotional
consequences of the abuse for the victim.

The EMERGE Approach

Batterers who successfully complete the program's
orientation phase of eight didactic and skills-
based sessions, and admit to at least some form of
domestic violence, graduate to an ongoing group
(see exhibit 3-1, "The EMERGE Model"). The groups
blend cognitive-behavioral techniques with
"accountability-focused group therapy," which is
more flexible and interactive than programs that
adhere strictly to a preset curriculum, such as
the Duluth model. The ongoing groups use
confrontation and feedback. 

New members introduce themselves to the ongoing
group through a so-called "long check-in." First,
the new member describes the incident that brought
him to the program, typically the most recent
abuse. The batterer has to focus on his own
behavior, without talking about what his partner
did to supposedly provoke the abuse. One group
facilitator interrupts batterers' attempts to
sidetrack the issue with phrases like, "Right now,
I just want to know what you did. . . . I'm not
interested in what you think she did wrong before
you hit her. . . . Your behavior is the reason
you're here."

Through the long check-in, which may last ten to
twenty minutes, the new member has to admit to his
violence in front of the group. The group
facilitator asks close-ended questions to elicit
details about which specific acts of violence were
committed, such as:

o Did you punch her with your fist?

o Did you knock her down?

o Did you have anything in your hand when you hit
her? Any kind of weapon? 

Long check-ins are repeated with any member the
therapist suspects of using violence again based
on something the batterer has said in group or the
partner has reported to the advocate. After the
check-ins from new members, each ongoing group
follows with short check-ins for regular members
centering on their interactions during the past
week, particularly situations involving conflict
or tension with their past or current partners.
Group therapists may probe for information
regarding other controlling behaviors, verbal
abuse, or alcohol and drug use, as well as any
positive principles the client may have practiced.
Members are reminded to concentrate on their own
behavior rather than their partners'.

After check-ins are completed, a member may ask
for a turn, or the group facilitator may call on a
member, to follow up on something he disclosed
during check-in. Typically, the person taking the
turn describes the recent conflict or incident in
detail, focusing on his thoughts, feelings, and
actions. Other group members are taught to give
appropriate feedback that avoids "quick-fix"
advice. Appropriate feedback includes listening
attentively, asking questions that determine the
sequence of events, and confronting the person
when he tries to avoid accepting responsibility
for his behavior. Once the facts of the event are
clear, the group turns to brainstorming
alternatives to how the person behaved with his
partner, and he then evaluates the usefulness of
the options proposed. The turn concludes when the
person practices the alternative he thinks will
work best, sometimes in role-play with another
group member. Each session concludes with goal
setting for the coming week and check-outs.

The EMERGE approach focuses on the broader
relationship between the batterer and the victim,
addressing other concerns of the partner in
addition to stopping the physical violence. To
build empathy, the therapist may instruct the
client to do a special check-in involving the
narrating of an abusive incident as though he were
his partner. Clients are instructed always to
refer to their partner by her first name (rather
than as "my wife" or "my girlfriend" or "the
wife") as a reminder not to think of the women as
possessions or objects. To address broader
concerns in the relationship, follow-up questions
in a client's turn may center on the partner's
thoughts and feelings during the conflict, with
the group leader balancing learning about the
broader context of the conflict against being
sidetracked by complaints about her behavior. To
maintain this balance, the therapist asks
questions about the batterer's responsibility for
his behavior and the feelings the victim has
expressed about his actions.

Group therapists also incorporate the partner's
concerns, as expressed to them or the victim
liaison, in establishing the client's individual
treatment goals. In addition to the standard goals
of no physical or sexual abuse toward the victim
or the children, each client develops behavioral
goals that address his favorite control tactics.
For instance, the partner may have expressed
concerns about a client's extreme jealousy. The
group would then help the client develop specific
behavioral goals, such as: "I will not ask jealous
questions of my partner when she gets home late,"
or "I will not call to check up on my partner
while she is at work." The goals would also
incorporate positive alternatives, such as: "The
next time I catch myself thinking jealous
thoughts, I will use positive self-talk," or
"Instead of checking up on my partner, next time
I'll take a walk." The main features of the goals
are that they continue to direct attention to the
client's behavior and that the partner is in
agreement with them.

The AMEND Approach

The designers of AMEND share the commitment to
longer-term treatment with the founders of EMERGE.
AMEND also aims to establish accountability,
increase awareness of the social context of
battering, and build skills. Group therapists at
AMEND use the Duluth "Power and Control Wheel,"
cognitive-behavioral techniques, and other anger
management tools. However, the AMEND model uses
therapeutic group process to address psychological
factors. But, whereas an ordinary therapy group
might try to support the client and help him
express his feelings, AMEND group leaders are
"moral guides" who assume more directive, value-
laden positions -- in particular, taking a firm
stand against violence and confronting the
client's behavior as unacceptable and illegal.

AMEND identifies four stages in the long-term
therapeutic process of recovery from violence:
crisis group, advanced group, self-help/support
group, and political action group. Most men do not
continue past the first two therapeutic stages.

o Stage I (Crisis Group). The first 12 to 18 weeks
of group therapy are devoted to breaking through
the batterer's denial. Through education and
confrontation, the batterer begins to accept some
responsibility for his violence.

o Stage II (Advanced Group). After four or five
months of group therapy, assuming the client has
been actively engaged in reflecting on his
patterns of abuse and in practicing anger
management techniques, his cognitive distortions
begin to decline and his denial breaks down. The
batterer begins to -- recognize his own
rationalizations. He will still try to minimize
and deny his violence (or blame his partner for
it), but when confronted in group, he will begin
to admit the truth -- that he chose to be violent
to get what he wanted from his partner. The
director of AMEND noted how often batterers might
admit during this stage, "The funny thing is, I
wasn't even that mad. I just wanted to show her
who's boss." 
These periodic breakthroughs define the second
stage of recovery.

However, the work of the group does not stop
there; batterers continue to vacillate between
accepting and avoiding responsibility for their
behavior. They may have learned to "talk the
talk," but they may also continue to be
manipulative or verbally abusive to their
partners. They may also present a good face to the
group, reporting only what went right during the
week. Unless the therapist can totally break
through the batterer's facade, the risk of relapse
remains. This is one of the reasons ongoing
partner contacts are important to the AMEND
intervention. Through victim advocates, therapists
can learn about verbal abuse or other intimidating
or threatening behavior and then confront the
batterer about these more subtle forms of abuse.

The final phase of recovery for those in the
advanced group is the beginning of genuine,
profound personal change. The batterer in this
phase has reformed outwardly; he no longer tries
to control his partner through violence or
intimidation. This is a painful and frightening
time for clients because they begin to feel long-
suppressed emotions, such as those from childhood
traumas. Group therapists at AMEND call this time
"the tunnel" because clients are midway through
the change process: they do not know whom they are
changing into, but they do not want to return to
the person they used to be. The group process
shifts to a warmer and more supportive tone at
this stage, more akin to conventional insight or
client-centered therapy. In addition, the
therapist continues to teach more sophisticated
skills like relaxation techniques and ways to
manage conflict.

Those who choose to continue in therapy may become
overly attached to the therapist, so that setting
and maintaining boundaries become especially
important. (For example, one group leader
mentioned that clients might want to continue the
discussion after group or feel that it was
appropriate to follow a facilitator home to talk
further.) 

As the client prepares to end therapy, he is
encouraged to develop a responsibility plan that
includes a support network that will help him
continue to practice healthy communication skills
and avoid future violence (Stage III, Self-
Help/Support Group). A few men will go beyond
self-help groups to become more involved in
community service and political action aimed at
ending domestic violence (Stage IV, Political
Action Group).

Implementation Issues

The more in-depth approaches of EMERGE and AMEND
require more sophisticated group therapy skills
than, say, psychoeducational programs that adhere
strictly to the Duluth curriculum. The designers
of the EMERGE approach recommend that groups be
led by a male-female team to model nonabusive
interactions between the sexes and to guard
against more subtle male bonding or victim
blaming, which a male group leader alone might
inadvertently encourage. Because batterers can be
such difficult clients, the codirector of AMEND
also recommends close clinical supervision of all
group leaders. For example, the Arapahoe County,
Colorado, chapter of AMEND devotes a two-hour
staff meeting once a week to case reviews with
therapists and victim advocates to ensure the
quality of the intervention.

Conclusion

The programs discussed in this chapter represent
mainstream approaches to batterer intervention.
All the programs share a common interest in
assuring the safety of the victim and stopping
violent behaviors by the batterer. The question of
how best to achieve nonviolence is critical from a
criminal justice standpoint. While confrontational
approaches are appropriate as a reminder to
batterers that violent behavior is illegal and
socially unacceptable, less punitive approaches,
such as those advocated by psychologists, may
produce greater retention in treatment and lower
rates of recidivism. Until more evaluations are
available, however, all batterer interventions can
promote criminal justice goals by intensively
monitoring the behavior of mandated batterers and
reporting violations of probation conditions or
any imminent threat to the victim to the proper
criminal justice authorities.

Endnotes

1. See Browne, K., D.G. Saunders, and K.M.
Staecker, "Process-Psychodynamic Groups for Men
Who Batter: Description of a Brief Treatment
Model," University of Michigan, January 26, 1996;
and Gondolf, E., "Multi-Site Evaluation of
Batterer Intervention Systems: A Summary of
Preliminary Findings," Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic
Addiction Training Institute, October 24, 1996.

2. Lindsey, M., R. W. McBride, and C. Platt, AMEND
Philosophy and Curriculum for Treating Batterers,
Littleton, CO: Gylantic, 1993.

3. Edelson, J. and R. M. Tolman, Intervention for
Men Who Batter: An Ecological Approach, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992.

4. AMEND has five sites, each with its own
director.

5. An intensive group orientation that supplements
individual intake sessions has also been found to
bolster program retention. Tolman, R.M. and L.W.
Bennet, "A Review of Research on Men Who Batter,"
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5 (1990): 102.

6. Campbell, J. C., "Prediction of Homicide of and
by Battered Women," in Assessing Dangerousness:
Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child
Abusers, ed. J. C. Campbell, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 1995: 96-113; Hoffnung, P.S.,
"General High Risk Factors: Likelihood of Serious
Harm," Quincy, MA: EMERGE, n.d.

7. Saunders, D. G., "Woman Battering," in
Assessment of Family Violence: A Clinical and
Legal Sourcebook, ed. R.T. Ammerman and M. Hersen,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992: 208-235.

8. Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of
California, 529 P2d 553 (Cal. 1974) (Tarasoff I);
reargued 551 P2d 334 (Cal. 1976) (Tarasoff II).

9. See Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 497
F.Supp. 185 (D. Neb. 1986) and Jablonski v. United
States, 712 F2d 391 (Ninth Circuit, 1983), which
held that therapists may be liable even when a
specific victim is not identified.

10. See Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G.A. Holden,
"Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent
Targeted Violence," Research in Action Series,
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,
September 1995.

11. Adams, D., L. Bancroft, T. German, and C.
Sousa, "Program Manual: First Stage Groups for Men
Who Batter," Quincy, MA: EMERGE, 1992.

12. Adams et al., "Program Manual: First Stage
Groups for Men Who Batter."

13. Gondolf, E.W., Men Who Batter: An Integrated
Approach to Stopping Wife Abuse, Holmes Beach, FL:
Learning Publications, 1985.

14. Lindsey, McBride, and Platt, AMEND Philosophy
and Curriculum for Treating Batterers.

15. Adams, D., "Treatment Models for Men Who
Batter: A Profeminist Analysis," in Feminist
Perspectives on Wife Abuse, ed. K. Yllo and M.
Bograd, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988:
176-199; Lindsey, McBride, and Platt, AMEND
Philosophy and Curriculum for Treating Batterers;
Paymar, M., Violent No More: Helping Men End
Domestic Abuse, Alameda, CA: Hunter House, 1993.

16. Adams et al., "Program Manual: First Stage
Groups for Men Who Batter"; Edelson and Tolman,
Intervention for Men Who Batter. 

17. Family Services Domestic Violence Treatment
Program, "Men's Domestic Violence Workbook,"
Seattle, WA: Family Services Domestic Violence
Treatment Program, 1996.

18. Zegree, J., S. Ellner and D. Berrysmith,
"Men's Group Manual," Seattle, WA: Zegree, Ellner
and Berrysmith Domestic Violence Treatment
Program, 1995.

19. Ibid., A-11.

20. Family Services, "Men's Domestic Violence
Workbook"; Lindsey, McBride, and Platt, AMEND
Philosophy and Curriculum for Treating Batterers;
Zegree, Ellner and Berrysmith, "Men's Group
Manual."

21. Paymar, Violent No More; and Pence, E.,
"Batterers' 
Programs: Shifting from Community Collusion to
Community Confrontation," Duluth, MN: Domestic
Abuse Intervention Project, 1988.

22. The pilot is being patterned after The Third
Path in-depth counseling program.

23. Adams, D., Course on "Counseling Men Who
Batter," a staff training seminar that fulfills
all the requirements for accrediting batterer
group facilitators in Massachusetts.

24. Lindsey, McBride, and Platt, AMEND Philosophy
and Curriculum for Treating Batterers.

25. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996.

26. Adams, Course on "Counseling Men Who Batter."

27. Lindsey, McBride, and Platt, AMEND Philosophy
and Curriculum for Treating Batterers.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o This chapter describes program services in the
larger, more well-established programs visited for
this report.

o Specialized innovative programming is discussed
in chapter 4, "Current Trends in Batterer
Intervention." 

o Common mainstream program procedures include:

-- Intake: First contact with batterer referred by
the criminal justice system.

-- Assessment: Client agrees with terms of program
and is assessed for dangerousness, extent of
abuse, substance abuse, mental illness,
illiteracy, or other obstacles to treatment.

-- Victim Contact: Partners may be notified about
batterer's status in the program and any imminent
danger, and referred to victim services.

-- Orientation: An initial phase of group
intervention that may be more didactic than later
meetings.

-- Group Treatment: May involve a set educational
curriculum or less structured discussions about
relationships, anger-management skills, or group
psychotherapy.

-- Leaving the Program: Batterers may complete the
program, be terminated for noncompliance, or be
asked to restart the program.

-- Follow-up: May consist of informal self-help
groups of program graduates or less frequent group
meetings.

o Program content varies, but all the well-
established programs discussed in this chapter
include feminist educational approaches that may
be combined with cognitive-behavioral or
psychotherapeutic approaches.

---------------------------

Selection of Programs Studied

Thirteen programs in five communities were
selected to represent a range of approaches to
batterer intervention.

o Two of the largest and most established programs
in the country -- EMERGE in Quincy, Massachusetts,
and AMEND in Denver -- were chosen to represent
pioneers that continue to modify their models in
keeping with the most recent trends in batterer
intervention.

o The Domestic Abuse Intervention Services (DAIS)
of Des Moines represents one of the many programs
that use the "Duluth model," a popular curriculum
developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention
Project of Duluth, Minnesota.

o Family Services of Seattle, a subsidized
provider of batterer intervention to low-income
clients, was founded as an anger management
program but shifted its emphasis to follow the
Duluth model.

o The Harborview Medical Center in Seattle,
Washington, was chosen to represent a public
health model of batterer intervention. The center
runs a self-styled "eclectic" program for
batterers as outpatients in a private hospital
setting that emphasizes psychotherapy.

o House of Ruth, in Baltimore, another Duluth-
based intervention, was chosen to represent
programs that prefer "colorblind" interracial
groups in contrast to the current trend toward
specialized single-race or culture interventions
that take into account the racial and cultural
context of the violence (see chapter 4, "Current
Trends in Batterer Intervention").

o Colorado's The Third Path, founded by Michael
Lindsey, was included for its innovative use of
psychological treatment and batterer typology, as
well as its focus on high-risk offenders.

o The Compassion Workshop of Silver Spring,
Maryland, was chosen for its innovative approach
to batterer intervention, which uses cognitive
restructuring techniques to prevent violent
responses to emotional pain and to cultivate
compassionate, nonviolent relationships.

A number of smaller programs that serve
specialized populations were observed in Seattle.
Zegree, Ellner and Berrysmith conducts two therapy
groups for batterers as part of its mental health
practice. Anne Ganley, a pioneer in batterer
treatment, directs a program for veterans that
utilizes the Duluth curriculum at the Mental
Health Clinic of the Seattle Veterans
Administration Medical Center. Ina Maka, a Native
American-operated intervention, uses the context
of Native American cultural lore as part of a
family-preservationist model of batterer
intervention. Sexual Minorities Counseling
Services targets gay and lesbian batterers.
Women's Refugee Alliance sponsors individual and
group batterer counseling for recent Southeast
Asian immigrants. These specialized programs are
discussed in chapter 4, "Current Trends in
Batterer Intervention."

--------------------------------

The Impact of State Standards on Intervention
Strategies

Each of the five communities visited for this
report developed its own response to domestic
violence. The responses were influenced in part by
the statutory standards of care in each State. 

The State standards in Iowa, for example, require
that the Duluth curriculum be used in all batterer
interventions. As a result, the probation office
in Des Moines finds it easiest to ensure that the
Duluth model is being followed by referring all
batterers to a single provider, the Domestic Abuse
Intervention Services (DAIS) program of Des
Moines. In constrast, Washington and Colorado
allow providers to implement a variety of
treatment approaches as long as they follow
specified procedures related to intake assessment,
frequency of victim contacts, and duration of
program participation. This flexibility allows
more than a dozen programs of varying sizes and
theoretical approaches to provide services to
cities like Seattle and Denver. Some of Seattle's
programs serve distinct populations using
curriculums designed especially for Asians,
veterans, Latinos, Native Americans, gays and
lesbians, or recent immigrants (see chapter 4,
"Current Trends in Batterer Intervention"). By
contrast, EMERGE, one of two programs that receive
referrals from Quincy, Massachusetts, District
Court, provides services to diverse populations
under one umbrella agency. Finally, in Baltimore,
where State standards are still being debated, an
established Duluth-style program currently
receiving the bulk of referrals will soon compete
with a controversial new program for court
referrals.

--------------------------------

Ongoing Lethality Assessment

Victim liaisons and batterer counselors routinely
inform clients that all staff have an ethical and
legal duty to warn the victim if they believe she
is in imminent danger of further abuse. While they
cannot predict dangerousness, practitioners are
told to watch for signs that a batterer intends to
harm someone. Some of these signs may be revealed
during the intake assessment and the initial
partner contact. When either the batterer or his
partner indicates that these signs are present,
the counselor must warn the batterer's partner and
probation officer about the potential danger.[6]
Warning signs based on the batterers' previous
behavior include:

o the severity of previous injuries to the
partner;

o incidents of forced sex with the partner;

o prior threats to kill, especially those
involving the brandishing of a gun or other
weapon; 

o history of alcohol or drug abuse, or a major
mental illness such as schizophrenia, manic -- --
depression, or personality disorder;

o obsessive jealousy or possessiveness, or
stalking behaviors like spying on the victim; and

o suicide threats, especially if the batterer has
attempted suicide in the past.

In addition to considering indicators based on
past history, practitioners also conduct ongoing
risk assessments during the intervention, looking,
for example, for any recent escalation of violence
or victim expressions of fear for her life. If,
during the course of treatment, the batterer
reveals he has or is developing a plan (as opposed
to a fantasy) to harm his partner, the
practitioner has an ethical and legal duty to warn
-- and even take steps to protect -- the potential
victim.[7] The batterer can be said to have a
plan, as distinguished from a fantasy, if he has
expressed an intention to take concrete steps to
carry out violence (e.g., purchase a weapon, save
money toward the objective) or has actually
carried out one or more steps. Counselors' legal
duty to protect potential victims varies by State
law and, in some cases, by State batterer
intervention standards or protocols.

In Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of
California,[8] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
therapists who have determined -- or should have
determined -- that a client is a threat have a
duty to use reasonable care to protect an intended
victim by, for example, warning the victim,
hospitalizing the client, and warning police. In
the case of batterer program staff, duty to warn
may include the victim, her victim advocate, the
batterer's probation officer, the courts, or
police. 

Subsequent Federal cases have set even stricter
standards.[9] Identifying a potential threat to
the victim allows law enforcement authorities to
conduct a risk assessment, evaluate the situation,
and develop a case management plan to preempt the
threat by vigorous prosecution of existing
offenses or engaging the assistance of other
mental health or social services staff.[10]

--------------------------------

Advantages of Open-Ended Group Interventions

For practical reasons, group membership is
typically open-ended, with new clients cycling in
as other clients graduate. Program administrators
argue that having a new member join ongoing groups
offers distinct advantages because new members:

o benefit from joining a group that has already
established norms for accountability;

o serve as reminders for those who have been
attending group of the consequences of violence;
and

o act as mirrors to other members of how much
progress they have made since they entered the
program.[14]

--------------------------------

Program Summaries for Three Mainstream Batterer
Intervention Models

Program models for the three major program
approaches discussed in this chapter share many
similarities, but they also have a few significant
differences.

The Duluth Curriculum

Program Structure -- Program length varies by
local standards but generally involves 2 or 3
sessions on each of eight themes:

o nonviolence;

o nonthreatening behavior;

o respect;

o support and trust;

o honesty and accountability;

o sexual respect;

o partnership; and

o negotiation and fairness.

Approach: Each unit begins with a video
illustrating the abusive behavior targeted for
change. Discussion is didactic and
confrontational. The Duluth model (which
incorporates the curriculum) emphasizes that
batterer intervention must take place in the
context of a coordinated community response to
domestic violence.

The EMERGE Model

Program Structure -- 48-week program divided into
two stages: 8 weeks of orientation, and 40 weeks
of group work. EMERGE recommends additional time
in the program for approximately one-third of the
batterers. Orientation topics include:

o defining domestic violence;

o negative versus positive "self-talk";

o effects of violence on women -- "quick fixes"
(e.g., apologies, promises) versus long-term
solutions (e.g., taking responsibility for their
abuse, developing respect, genuine changes);

o psychological, sexual, and economic abuse;

o abusive versus respectful communication; and

o effects of partner abuse on children.

Second stage groups meet weekly for two hours.
Group sessions typically include:

o a short "check-in" for old group members and a
long "check-in" for any new group members. Short
check-ins recount any conflicts during the week;
long check-ins detail the last abusive episode and
focus on batterer responsibility;

o longer discussions concerning issues raised
during check-in that focus on alternatives to
violence; and

o development of individualized goals based on
current and past abuse.

Approach: EMERGE emphasizes the broader
relationship between batterer and victim: it
targets not only physical but also emotional
and psychological abuse for reform. Exercises
to develop respect and empathy for the victim
are used. Group leaders use confrontation.

The AMEND Model

Program Structure -- Period of intervention is
variable, from 36 weeks (the standard period
for batterers mandated to treatment) to five
years for the most difficult cases. AMEND
prefers a long treatment period. AMEND takes a
"multimodal" approach to batterer intervention
centered on group therapy, but it may also
include some individual counseling or couples
work.

Approach: AMEND's philosophy has seven tenets:

o belief in the feminist "power and control"
theory of battering is central;

o intervention with batterers cannot be value-
neutral -- violence is a crime;

o violence and abuse are choices, and the victim
is not responsible for the violence;

o counseling has two aims: 1) teaching behavior
change to stop violence and abuse, and 2)
addressing the psychological features of the
batterer's problem;

o ending violence is a long-term process, from one
to five years;

o ending violence is complex and requires
"multimodal intervention"; and

o the treatment of batterers requires special
skills and training.

--------------------------------

Chapter 4: Current Trends in Batterer
Intervention: Innovations From the Field and the
Research Community

Both practitioners and academics have long been
concerned that a "one-size-fits-all" intervention
approach is neither effective nor appropriate for
the diverse population of batterers entering the
criminal justice system. Program directors and
probation officers interviewed for this report
frequently observed that battering was not a
"monolithic" or "unitary" phenomenon, as had been
argued previously by some theorists and treatment
professionals: they saw no one type of batterer
and found no one intervention or treatment to be
effective with all batterers. In response to this
diversity, two categories of program refinements
are emerging from practitioner innovations and
cooperative field research among practitioners,
criminal justice agencies, and academics:

o interventions that are tailored to specific
types of batterers ("batterer typology") based on
the batterer's psychological profile, criminal
history, substance abuse history, or assessment of
lethality; and

o intervention models that tailor curriculums and
program policies to accommodate batterers'
sociocultural differences, such as poverty, poor
literacy, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or
sexual orientation.

In addition, a new theory of the origins of
battering has been advanced, together with an
unconventional treatment approach. The merit of
many of the models and curriculums continues to be
debated. However, the need for innovation is also
increasingly recognized and accepted. Researchers
interviewed for this report emphasized that the
development of new or the refinement of older
batterer intervention models need not conflict
with the adoption of State standards or
certification criteria for batterer interventions.
Standards need only be flexible enough to permit
responsible variation among programs and to
provide guidelines for the safe development of new
approaches. 

Interventions Based on Batterer Typologies

Evidence that individual factors play a role in
battering is easily found. Not everyone who grows
up witnessing domestic violence becomes a
batterer, and not all batterers grew up witnessing
domestic violence; most males exposed to a
"culture of violence" and male dominance do not
batter. The questions remain whether and, if so,
how the individual attributes that contribute to
violence should be treated and whether programs
can diversify to meet the needs of every typology.

Mounting Evidence of the Need for Typologies

Arguments that intervention should be tailored to
accommodate individual psychological
characteristics are not new.[1] However, research
findings pointing to the need for batterer
typologies have generally failed to alter
treatment programs, both because feminist-based
programs view the focus on psychological
attributes of batterers unfavorably and because
researchers do not agree on what a typology of
batterers might look like.

Psychological Typologies

Unfortunately, no consensus concerning
psychological categories for batterers has emerged
from the research community although several
overlapping typologies have been proposed. For
example, Gondolf's 1988 study using 525 battered
women as informants yielded three types of
batterers: sociopathic, antisocial, and
typical.[2] However, as noted in chapter 1,
Gondolf's current research on batterers -- which
includes psychological assessments using the
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI), a
diagnostic tool used by a number of programs --
has yielded an extremely varied picture of
batterer psychology that does not fit neatly with
earlier research: 25 percent showed evidence of a
severe mental disorder; 25 percent showed
narcissistic personality traits; 24 percent showed
passive-aggressive traits; and 19 percent were
clinically depressed. Over half the men appeared
to have abused alcohol.[3] Other researchers have
arrived at the following tripartite classification
scheme for batterers:[4]

o The "Family Only" Batterer is characterized as
rigid, perfectionist, and conforming, with limited
social skills. The family-only batterer did not
experience much physical abuse in childhood and is
mildly to moderately violent toward his family.

o The Dysphoric/Borderline Batterer is very
emotional, experienced parental rejection and
fears abandonment, and is extremely abusive
psychologically but not severely violent
physically.

o The "Generally Violent/Antisocial" Batterer
tends to abuse alcohol, lacks empathy, has rigid
gender role attitudes, and is narcissistic -- that
is, expects special treatment and deference. He
was physically abused in childhood and engages in
other crimes, viewing violence as the appropriate
method of solving problems.

Donald Dutton has recently proposed yet another
tripartite scheme that is similar, but not
identical, to the others.[5] Dutton classifies
batterers as emotionally volatile, psychopathic,
or overcontrolled/explosive.

The Third Path and AMEND use the MCMI to produce
profiles of pathology that allow for the
classification of batterers to aid treatment.[6]
At The Third Path, psychological traits are
addressed in group, and groups are structured so
that a mixture of personality types is present.

While psychological typologies are interesting
from a theoretical standpoint, they offer little
assistance to the criminal justice system as yet
because of the in-depth assessment needed to
identify these characteristics and the paucity of
typology-based interventions available in the
field. The criminal justice-based typologies
discussed below offer a more practical frontline
approach to batterer triage; nonetheless, the more
subtle distinctions made possible by psychological
typologies may be of great use to jurisdictions
and program providers that are willing to
integrate group process intervention with the
educational model used by most programs (see
"Typology in Action: Colorado's 18th Judicial
District," p. 61). For example, in Iowa, State
officials have consulted with Michael Lindsey,
founder of Colorado's AMEND and The Third Path, to
explore options for using batterer typology to
identify high-risk offenders for private
counseling, or alcohol treatment, or extended
interventions that would address psychological
factors as well as provide education, although
Iowa State Standards mandate the use of the Duluth
curriculum. 

Criminal Justice-Based Typologies

While courts, probation officers, prosecutors, and
program screeners in all jurisdictions routinely
make decisions concerning the dangerousness of
offenders and the appropriateness of various
interventions for individual batterers, few
jurisdictions have systematic assessment tools
based on an articulated theory of batterer
typology. Typical of the majority of jurisdictions
visited for this report was the Quincy,
Massachusetts, Court Model Domestic Abuse Program,
which provides probation officers with a manual
containing specific guidelines to help them assess
the dangerousness of offenders and a discussion of
intervention issues but no standardized diagnostic
form or referral protocols. Recent research by
John Goldkamp may offer a practical, more
standardized approach to offender classification.
Using demographic information, criminal histories,
and substance abuse data from his study of the
Dade County Domestic Violence Court, Goldkamp
proposes several classification strategies to
assist in the disposition of batterers.[7]
Goldkamp's typologies focus on predicting batterer
retention in treatment and the likelihood of
reoffending, both with the same victim and with
other women (see exhibit 4-1, "Predictive
Classification of Rearrest"). Goldkamp's approach
is attractive from a criminal justice perspective
because, as listed below, the information
necessary to predict retention in treatment and
recidivism should be already available to most
prosecutors, probation officers, and judges in rap
sheets and probation reports without having to do
a special assessment of the offender. These
provide:

o basic demographic information concerning the
offender, such as race/ethnicity, age,
relationship to the victim, and victim gender;

o a detailed criminal history, such as current
offense, any prior civil court cases, convictions,
and number and types of arrests -- assault and
battery arrests, same-victim arrests, and
domestic-violence-related arrests; and

o information about drug and alcohol involvement,
including types of drugs abused.

Goldkamp's analysis found that "[t]he probability
of rearrest was far greater for persons with any
prior convictions, any prior assault and battery
arrests, and indications of involvement with other
drugs of abuse (not alcohol)."8 This analysis is
consistent with Gondolf's finding that monthly
drunkenness triples an offender's likelihood of
rearrest.[9]

Using a matrix that categorized defendants and
probationers by dropout risk on one dimension and
rearrest risk with the same victim on the other,
Goldkamp was able to draw some potentially useful
distinctions among offenders that go beyond
assessing dangerousness: "[M]ore than one-third
(37 percent) of the sample would fall into the
lowest dropout risk and lowest same-victim
rearrest categories. (In other words, they should
be great treatment prospects and pose little risk
to the victim.) But some defendants who pose
little threat to the victim (low risk of rearrest)
are not classified as likely to stay in treatment.
About seven percent of all defendants/probationers
are in the high dropout risk category, even though
they are in the lowest victim risk category."[10]
This sort of analysis would be extremely helpful
to probation officers, prosecutors, and judges in
determining sentences and assigning batterers to
specialized programs. After assignment to a
specific program, the batterer could then be
subject to additional intake assessment, including
a psychological evaluation, if the program was
geared to address psychological issues.

The following discussion presents an approach to
batterer classification that combines both
psychological and criminal justice factors to
create offender profiles as an aid to sentencing
and supervision.

Typology in Action: Colorado's 18th Judicial
District

The 18th Judicial District Probation Department in
Colorado has implemented a unique batterer
assessment and intervention assignment process
based on Michael Lindsay's research concerning
batterer typology. Frank Robinson, consultant
clinical social worker to the probation office,
and Michael Lindsey have collaborated on an
assessment tool, the Domestic Violence Behavioral
Checklist, which catalogs the batterer's history
of intimate relationships, parenting, criminality,
substance abuse, and social and psychological
dysfunction to assign the batterer to one of three
offender groups: low, medium, or high level of
risk. The one-page assessment tool includes 38
questions and requires approximately 45 minutes to
administer. Probation officers or volunteers can
be easily trained to implement it. 

Low-risk offenders must not have caused any
physical injury and must not have committed any
previous violent offenses against the victim. The
offender's claim that this was the first episode
of violence -- not merely the first episode to be
reported -- needs to be corroborated by the
victim. In addition, low-risk offenders must:

o have no history of verbal or psychological abuse
(as reported by the victim);

o have no history of "chaotic or dysfunctional
behavior"; 

o not have committed the offense during a period
of separation;

o have no children involved in the dispute; and

o have no more than two -- of a possible seven --
low-risk criteria checked (see box, "The Domestic
Violence Behavioral Checklist," p. 62). 

This group of offenders is likely to be offered
deferred prosecution wherein they are allowed to
enter a guilty plea with the understanding that if
they complete an accredited batterer program and
do not reoffend for three years, the plea will be
withdrawn and the charges dropped. The prospect of
no criminal record is often a compelling
motivation for first-time batterers who are
professionals or middle-class to complete a
program.

Medium-risk offenders are those with more than two
low-risk factors, or one or more medium risk
factors (see above). Probation recommends that
medium-risk offenders be sentenced to probation
with a condition of program completion and assigns
them to a probation volunteer for close tracking
(see chapter 4, "Current Trends in Batterer
Intervention," for a discussion of the use of
volunteers for probation supervision). 

High-risk offenders include any batterer with even
one high-risk indicator (see above). For the
purposes of intervention, probation divides the
high-risk group into two subgroups:

1. batterers who are out of control despite
consequences or interventions, and

2. batterers whose lives are chaotic and
dysfunctional and who are obsessed with their
victim.

Those in the first group are not appropriate for
participation in batterer programs; probation
recommends that they be incarcerated. The second
group, which is supervised by a specially assigned
probation officer with a reduced caseload, is
recommended for both long-term (more than 36
weeks) and intensive (more than one session per
week) program interventions that are structured to
address the challenge of high-risk offenders.
Although the court uses several programs, many of
the high-risk offenders are referred to The Third
Path, where Robert McBride, program director,
conducts a detailed intake assessment that
identifies offenders with personality disorders so
that therapists can better understand and attempt
to change their behaviors.

Probation officers also note on the checklist
other factors that may suggest assigning the
offender to a specific intervention, such as the
batterer's gender, sexual orientation, primary
language, need for substance abuse or child abuse
treatment, or other special needs. In this manner,
the Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist
integrates assessment of batterer typology and
lethality with assignment to culturally
appropriate interventions.

Cultural Specificity: The Influence of Class,
Race, and Subculture

Factors that can affect the expression of domestic
violence and response to treatment include
socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic identity,
country of origin, and sexual orientation. 

o While a national survey of a random sample of
married couples found domestic violence in all
social milieux, the survey revealed a higher
prevalence among poorer families.[11] Low-income
men may be subject to greater stress in everyday
life, and their lack of economic power and
possible financial dependence on female partners
may threaten their sense of masculinity, perhaps
increasing the motive to assert dominance and
control through physical violence. 

o Wealthy batterers are less visible because they
enjoy greater privacy in their family lives and
have more resources for dealing with problems
without involving the police or social services.
Should they be prosecuted, they can afford a
private attorney who may get them a lighter
sentence, and they can pay for private counseling
or psychotherapy in lieu of a batterer group. Most
men in mandated batterer programs visited for this
report had relatively low levels of income and
education. 

o Men of color are also mandated to treatment in
numbers disproportionate to their representation
in the local population. Researchers attribute
this overrepresentation to a correlation with low
socioeconomic status, lingering discrimination in
the criminal justice system, and greater exposure
to violence in the community. Resistance to
treatment may be higher among minority men: some
African American men have attributed their being
mandated to programs to racism, a charge that
facilitators have had to recognize without
accepting it as an excuse for battering. 

o Research suggests that men of color -- including 
African American and Latino men -- have a lower
program completion rate than other cultural or
racial groups.[12] As a result, some researchers
and practitioners have proposed that the
effectiveness of interventions will be enhanced
among minority men if programs are not merely
culturally sensitive, but, as discussed below,
culturally competent.[13] All the jurisdictions
visited for this report had at least limited
access to specialized treatment groups for
batterers of different races, ethnicities, and
sexual orientations, and most -- but not all --
agreed that specialized interventions enhanced the
engagement of batterers in treatment.

Adapting Interventions to Accommodate Differences
in Socioeconomic Status

Although no program contacted for this report
attempted to segregate its clients by
socioeconomic characteristics, most programs
reported concerns about client poverty and
illiteracy.

Program Fees

Most programs offer a sliding scale for program
fees. In some cases, "reasonable" fees and sliding
fee scales are mandated by State standards for
batterer programs or accrediting agencies for
service providers (see appendix A). For example,
Family Services of Seattle is subsidized by local
government so that their intake fee can be reduced
to $25, as compared with the $45 or more payment
required by the majority of batterer programs in
Seattle. Often, however, sliding scales and fee
reductions are not enough. In Baltimore, despite a
sliding scale that ranges from $5 per week for
those making $198 or less per month to $65 for
those making over $2,400 per month, a large number
of batterers are rejected because they cannot
afford to pay. 

Program directors report that fees are critical to
the survival of most programs, and no one claims
that interventions are profitable. While few
programs contacted for this report rely on a mix
of public funding and grants (see appendix C), the
majority rely on payments from batterers for
between 40 and 100 percent of their program
income. Program directors across the country also
emphasized that some minimum payment for program
participation is necessary so that batterers
understand that treatment is valuable and thus
develop a personal investment in its being
successful. Nevertheless, requiring mandatory
payments from unemployed or low-income batterers
remains controversial. Some probation officers
worry that inability to pay excludes a large
number of men who would otherwise benefit from
intervention. Baltimore probation officer Willie
Saunders expressed concern that too many batterers
were falling outside the system: "The sliding
scale should go to zero. The unemployed cannot
pay." Saunders suggested that programs might
accept "sweat equity" (that is, working at the
program in exchange for program services), an
approach recommended by a number of State
standards. Oliver Williams, who studies batterer
intervention with African Americans, expressed
concern that financial issues are used
disingenuously to exclude low-income men from
interventions. Williams observed, "If it's a
survival issue [for the program], O.K., or a fine,
O.K., but don't say exclusion [for nonpayment] is
for the good of the client." However, program
administrators tend to attribute nonpayment to
lack of commitment to program goals. "Anybody can
find $5 per week," one program director said,
"Stop smoking. Walk instead of taking the bus.
Borrow it from a friend. If they can document that
it's coming out of food for the children, then
we'll talk about it." Wil Avery at Baltimore's
House of Ruth equates program fees with fines and
points to their deterrent effect: "One man who had
completed the program came to me and said, 'You
know, I was going to hit my wife, but then I
thought of all that money I'd have to pay again,
and I stopped. Then I thought about all the things
you taught us.' "

Program directors and probation officers alike
suspect that batterers' refusal to pay and claims
of economic hardship are often used as an easy way
out of batterer intervention. When judges see
batterers for failing to register, they may be
swayed by stories of economic hardship and delete
the condition of program attendance from the
sentence. In jurisdictions where no alternative
sentences such as community service exist for
battering, judges are often reluctant to jail a
batterer for inability to pay. In response to the
dearth of options for indigent batterers,
probation officers in Baltimore's domestic
violence intensive supervision unit, the Family
Assault Supervision Team or "FAST Unit," were
organizing the Batterers Termination Intervention
Group to provide free in-house batterer treatment
to batterers who were rejected by local programs
because of their inability to pay (as well as
those terminated for probation violations or
considered too dangerous for community-based
programs).

Literacy

Although many programs assign homework and
readings, all contend that their curriculums can
be adapted to suit batterers with poor or no
reading and writing skills. For example, Ina Maka,
a Native American intervention in Seattle, has
assembled a wide selection of simply written
articles for batterers and their families.
Programs using the Duluth model report assigning
homework or reading lessons in pairs. They do not
ask for homework to be turned in, only read aloud
in group. At the House of Ruth, batterers with low
literacy levels are encouraged to draw pictures as
their homework assignments and then to "read" from
the pictures. Wil Avery noted that this approach
is so effective that group leaders are sometimes
unaware of who is illiterate until the program
evaluation is completed at the end of the course.

With the vocabulary and conceptual complexity of a
college-level course, The Compassion Workshop
lectures and homework would be challenging to many
participants; nonetheless, an assistant group
facilitator insists that the material can be made
accessible to participants who listen attentively
and that assistants are available to read homework
to batterers and to review the program content. He
warned, however, that "participants who can't read
probably won't get as much out of the program."
Steven Stosny, originator and director of The
Compassion Workshop, argues that the elevated
educational tone of the course engages batterers
by showing respect for their ability to understand
the material and, as they begin to master the
somewhat technical terms and concepts, boosts
their self-esteem. Stosny noted that he had
experimented with simplifying the language in the
program's curriculum but found that clients
preferred to be challenged.

Culturally Competent Interventions: Addressing
Race, Ethnicity, and Subculture

Minorities have been discouraged from using
mainstream social service agencies by racially or
culturally insensitive service provider attitudes
and practices.[14] As a result, minorities often
turn for help to informal support networks such as
family and friends, churches, or community-based
social service providers of the same race or
ethnicity (many of which are overwhelmed with
requests for assistance or ill-equipped to deal
with domestic violence). Oliver Williams argues
that batterer interventions must become
"culturally competent" to retain minority
referrals and improve minority participation. A
culturally competent intervention draws on the
strengths of the culture, whether it is
spirituality, a value placed on the family, or
communal social systems. The intervention also
addresses the weaknesses, such as alcoholism,
harsh child discipline, and gender roles, that
condone wife-abuse. Culturally competent programs
have been developed for African Americans, Latinos
(with a distinction drawn between merely bilingual
programs and bicultural programs), Haitians,
Asians, Native Americans, and recent immigrants.

Williams defines cultural competence according to
two criteria, organizational behavior and cultural
program efforts. Organizational behavior consists
of "activities an organization undertakes to
prepare itself to work with a culturally diverse
client population,"[15] such as:

o providing staff with literature concerning
effective service delivery to minorities;

o training staff in distinguishing three
approaches to serving minorities -- beginning with
culturally destructive approaches, moving to
colorblind approaches, and finally achieving
culturally competent delivery of services;

o seeking qualified consultants for conducting
staff training if necessary; and

o engaging in self-evaluation and the active
implementation of program changes to achieve
cultural competence.[16]

Cultural program efforts are "those activities
that not only demonstrate organizational
preparedness to work with culturally different
clients, but also demonstrate a willingness to
work with them,"[17] such as outreach activities
to:

o educate the community about the program and its
goals;

o show interest in and support for the minority
community generally;

o encourage the minority community to utilize
batterer treatment services; and 

o offer treatment that is sensitive to the needs
of the population being served. 

Oliver Williams argues that the focus on diversity
in batterer interventions may be seen as falling
along a continuum:

o Colorblind interventions believe that focusing
on racial or ethnic differences is inappropriate
for batterer interventions, that "differences
don't make a difference."

o Healthy heterogeneous interventions value
diversity but operate in a multicultural or
multiracial environment.

o Culturally specific milieu refers to
interventions whose participants are predominantly
from one culture or race, so that no special
efforts are judged necessary to ensure open
discussion of culture or race-specific issues.

o Culturally focused interventions pay deliberate
attention to the historical or contemporary
experiences of a particular cultural or racial
group. Cultural identity is defined and linked to
behavior. 

o Culturally centered interventions place a
particular race or ethnicity's culture and values
at the center of the treatment. Attention is given
to culturally significant rituals.

Tailoring interventions to the needs and values of
specific racial, ethnic, or subcultural groups is
consistent with the feminist/social learning
perspective. If battering is in large part the
result of learned experiences and cultural
attitudes toward the roles of men and women, then
treatment should take the nature of those
experiences and cultural expectations into
account. The feminist model, used by the majority
of interventions, takes into account one social
factor related to battering -- sexism -- but other
social factors may also promote violence. For
example, Williams argues that the environment of
violence and poverty in which many African
American men are raised fosters an association
between manhood and violence.[18] Treatment is
more effective, he argues, if battering is not
isolated from relevant psychological and social
realities of membership in a minority group, such
as cultural self-hatred, displacement of anger,
"black-on-black violence," suicide, drug abuse,
and cultural codes, including the urge to respond
physically if someone appears to be disrespectful.

Some African American batterers mandated to a
program may bring resentment against the criminal
justice system, which has to be addressed before
the participants can be receptive to modifying
their behavior. The fact that men of color are
more likely to be arrested and convicted than
white male batterers, especially middle-class
white batterers, cannot be allowed to obscure the
fact that the African American batterers need to
change their behavior. However, while the feelings
aroused by the racism they have experienced can be
a barrier to effective treatment, once a program
acknowledges and deals with those feelings, it can
also provide a springboard for helping
participants to understand the powerlessness and
oppression victims experience.

Attempts to modify batterer behavior should also
build on the positive values and strengths of
minority cultures. For example, Oliver Williams
contends that telling African American men "You
are hurting this woman, and that is why you should
stop" alone will not have as much impact as also
saying "You are hurting your community."
Facilitators of minority and immigrant groups said
that deep concern about children and the family
was a hook used to engage court-mandated batterers
in treatment. Betty Williams Watson, cofacilitator
of an African American men's group at Family
Services of Seattle, noted that Father's Day was
an emotionally charged time for the men in her
group. After participants resurrected anger and
hurt at having been abandoned by their fathers,
Watson redirected their attention to the similar
behavior they were inflicting on their own sons
and daughters: by being violent, they were being
excluded from the home, effectively abandoning
their children.[19]

Another example of recognizing social realities
but building on subcultural strengths is provided
by a program for Asian immigrants. Programs
emphasize that while wife abuse may have been
acceptable behavior in their country of origin,
they need to obey the laws of their new home.
According to a Vietnamese counselor, as children
and wives assimilate, husbands may resort to
violence to retain control and authority in the
family. The counselor reasons with the men that
they, too, have adopted new ways, such as dressing
and behaving more informally at work. As
immigrants, he points out, they value change and
adaptation. In short, the men are not being left
out of their family's acculturation; the family is
growing and changing together. 

Groups in which members of a minority culture
predominate can create unusually strong feelings
of solidarity, allowing members to provide support
to each other (as well as to challenge each other)
during and after meetings. The rituals the group
observes to bring the participants closer and to
build trust may vary from culture to culture. For
example, a Latino batterer group begins and ends
meetings by sharing food; a Native American
program uses a sweat lodge and other rituals
devoted to healing and cleansing.

In sum, culturally competent interventions have
three methods of enhancing the "one-size-fits-all"
approach: 

o recognizing and working with the social and
psychological realities of participants without
allowing these realities to become an excuse for
abuse; 

o capitalizing on cultural strengths and values --
such as communality, a belief in family, and
spirituality -- to promote the change process; and 

o decreasing the isolation or discrimination that
minority batterers may feel in a culturally
heterogeneous group (see below). 

The following sections discuss how batterer
interventions have been modified to accommodate
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender. 

Batterer Programs for Men of African Descent

Two types of programs that serve men of African
descent were visited for this report: 

o programs that provide the option to join an all
African American batterer group; and 

o programs that provide only integrated groups. 

Among the programs that provided only integrated
groups, some were too small, or the percentage of
minority clients too few, to support a separate
racial group. By contrast, the House of Ruth in
Baltimore, whose clientele is predominantly
African American, chose an integrated group
structure on the grounds that to focus on race or
any other issue that is batterer-specific, such as
psychological background or socioeconomic class,
distracts from the central issue of addressing the
violent behavior. For example, group leaders at
the House of Ruth observe that the Duluth
curriculum's "Power and Control Wheel" (see
exhibit 1-1) cuts across all racial or ethnic
identities and religious beliefs. John Miller, an
African American group facilitator, summed up
their viewpoint as follows: "Different cultural
backgrounds are no barrier in group. In fact,
diversity is a plus because the topic has nothing
to do with socioeconomic or race issues. Our exit
interviews with program graduates emphasize the
importance of learning from the other men --
regardless of their race or backgrounds." In his
experience, the men in group benefited from seeing
the common elements of abusive behavior across all
cultures and socioeconomic classes. According to
Miller, the presence of batterers from different
races, cultures, and social classes in group was a
great leveler that demonstrated that no group was
exempt from abusing women and that allowed no
group to feel superior to any other.

While the House of Ruth's approach is
theoretically very different from the culturally
competent approaches Oliver Williams advocates, in
practice the contrast is not so stark. The
batterer group observed for this report was 80
percent African American and was facilitated by an
African American woman and man. Although no issues
relating to race or African American culture were
raised by the men or the facilitators, group
facilitators and the program director provided
numerous examples of ways in which the material is
changed to better suit African American culture
when appropriate. Program director Wil Avery, who
is African American and a church deacon,
emphasized that his understanding of African
American culture and southern culture allows him
to present the Duluth curriculum in a context that
has relevance to African Americans. The House of
Ruth is also involved in outreach efforts to the
minority community, a step toward cultural
competence recommended by Williams.

Sunya Faloyan, cofounder of the Empowerment
Project, a partnership in Charlotte, North
Carolina, holds the opposite view: "In mixed
groups men can talk about cultural differences as
a way to avoid identifying with the other men in
group and escape responsibility." Chuck Turner, an
African American group educator at EMERGE, where
African American groups are available after the
initial eight-week orientation, agrees: "An
African American group allows men to focus on what
they did instead of social injustice or racism. It
also removes attitudinal obstacles for African
American men, such as negative 'self-talk' about
the orientation of a white counselor." Turner gave
an example of how an African American group can
enhance program participation: "One twenty-three-
year-old African American man who served three
years in jail for drugs was talkative but clownish
in [the mixed race] intake group. In the ongoing
African American group, he opened up and talked
more seriously about gang activity -- he was
capable of a better discussion." Betty Williams
Watson, cofacilitator of the African American
men's group at Family Services of Seattle, noted
that she has instant credibility with an African
American group but that she still needs to address
the issue of racism before they can focus on
violence: "The men say to me, 'How dare you betray
us? Don't you know about racism? You know how
we've been treated, what the system has done to
us.' I say, 'Yes, but you're beating up women.' "

Sunya Faloyan gave the example of a mixed group in
North Carolina, facilitated by African Americans,
in which African Americans were both ridiculed and
feared: "The black men in the group were laborers
and usually came dressed informally. One night a
black man came dressed in a suit; the facilitator
and the white batterers ridiculed him, laughing
and saying 'You must think you're really big.' As
long as [the African Americans] were laughing it
was all right, but when they got serious it was
very threatening to whites." Faloyan explained,
"Society is accustomed to seeing black men act as
comics or holding a lower position in society.
According to society, this is a comfortable role
for black men. Whenever black men are seen as
acting out of that role it is seen as a threat by
society. Black curriculum is important to African
Americans because it enables them to construct
their own existence and reality (rather than
accept the constructs and limitations placed on
them by society)."

Because of their concerns that racism can obstruct
batterer treatment, Faloyan and cofounder Radhia
Jaabar have developed a still-evolving specialized
curriculum for men of African descent, the Kinship
Journey. The central themes of the curriculum are
that violence against one's partner is violence
against oneself (reflecting the traditional
African view that men and women are part of one
another), spirituality, and the concept of the
extended family. The curriculum is structured
around Seven Pathways: personhood; family;
tradition; black masculinity; collective
consciousness; grief, anger, and trust; and
spirituality. The men in group supply much of the
content under each heading, and the struggle to
define each heading leads to discussion. The
Kinship Journey also makes use of the Duluth
curriculum's videos and role-playing. Jaaber, a
consultant to the National Training Project in
Minnesota, which markets the Duluth curriculum, is
currently piloting the Kinship Journey curriculum
around the country.

Outreach to the African American community can be
a slow and frustrating process. Watson points out
that "the sense of community is stronger among
African Americans, but community support for
batterers works against treatment because the
community is often tolerant of or turns a blind
eye to battering." As a consultant for the
Breaking the Silence program, a domestic violence
awareness program for African American
communities, Watson invited 25 churches, which she
considers to be the "lifeblood of the community,"
to a training session on domestic violence issues.
While parishioners from 20 churches came, most of
them were women and few were ministers. Watson has
encountered hostility from the religious community
for raising the issue of domestic violence: "One
minister told me, 'All our families are happy and
sound. You don't come here.' " In her own church,
however, Watson is making some headway, posting
information in the men's and women's restrooms and
in the church foyer and displaying domestic
violence awareness materials, such as drawings
from children with fathers who batter, letters
from batterers to victims, and pictures of a
batterer being arrested.

Asian Batterer Groups: Issues for Recent
Immigrants

EMERGE in Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Domestic
Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS), in Des Moines,
Iowa, and the Refugee Women's Alliance in Seattle
offer specialized groups for Asian batterers, most
of whom are recent immigrants from Cambodia or
Vietnam. Unlike other batterer interventions,
counseling for Asian immigrants either begins with
individual counseling because of cultural barriers
to speaking openly in a group, or is entirely one-
on-one. For example, at EMERGE, Cambodian
batterers are counseled individually at first and
then moved into small groups of three or four men
once the counselor has established trust that he
would not humiliate the man in front of his peers.
The Vietnamese counselor at EMERGE works with men
individually to avoid humiliating them in Boston's
tight-knit Vietnamese community. At DAIS, one
multilingual Vietnamese counsels most Asian
batterers individually because of similar concerns
regarding privacy and humiliation (although he
does run a small Laotian group). By contrast, at
Seattle's Refugee Women's Alliance, five groups of
Asian and other immigrant batterers have been
counseled using a complicated system of
interpreters. One group, composed of one Cambodian
and nine Vietnamese, was conducted in English in
order to accommodate the American cofacilitator;
another group, composed of five Vietnamese, one
Russian, two English-speaking Filipinos, and two
English-speaking Laotians, was conducted in
English with interpreters for the Russians and
Vietnamese. The counselor, Minh-Phuong La Nguyen,
claims that family and community roles are similar
across Southeast Asia, so the group approach,
although slow and difficult with interpreters,
works for most clients.

Program directors emphasized the importance of
having a native speaker facilitate Asian batterer
groups. Counselors who can anticipate and address
a client's cultural assumptions are better
equipped than American-born counselors to work
with Asian batterers. There was a clear consensus
among counselors working with Asian immigrants
that this population could not participate
effectively in the standard Duluth-style
intervention because of a number of cultural and
psychological characteristics common to many of
them, especially an aversion to group work and an
abhorrence of confrontation. 

Respected counselors become "elders." Counselors
noted the importance of securing and keeping the
client's respect; they advised counselors of Asian
batterers to be formal and firm in their initial
dealings with clients. Once a tone of respect is
established, Asian immigrant batterers uniformly
regard counselors -- who in the programs visited
for this report were all Asian immigrants
themselves -- as "elders" who have assumed the
authority figure role of uncles or grandfathers
left behind. Counselors also represent the force
of the American legal system and serve both as
models of assimilation and as experts on American
laws, beliefs, and customs. Asian counselors noted
that, with the loss of their elders, most recent
immigrants have lost their sense of community,
making it incumbent on counselors to rebuild their
sense of community and collective conscience. As a
result, Asian counselors report a much higher
personal involvement in the lives of their clients
than ordinary group leaders would exercise:
counselors explore batterers' experiences as
political detainees or victims of torture, discuss
pressing personal concerns such as family members
left behind in Asia against their will or problems
with child rearing and discipline, and even assist
with solving practical problems such as filing
taxes and registering cars.

Domestic problems are regarded as a private
matter. According to the Asian counselors,
throughout Southeast Asia, domestic abuse is
regarded as a private matter not to be discussed
in public and also as socially acceptable
behavior. Minh-Phuong La Nguyen notes that in
Vietnam the community either ignored domestic
violence or regarded it as a source of humor. Some
Asian batterers have enormous difficulty accepting
that these behaviors are illegal in the United
States; according to Peter Oeur, a Cambodian
counselor at EMERGE, 90 percent of the men he
counsels do not understand the concept of
emotional or sexual abuse. Furthermore, because it
was legal in Cambodia for a man to take two or
three wives, Oeur says, American notions of gender
equality are difficult for both husbands and wives
to accept. At DAIS, the counselor tells the
batterers that there is no shame in getting help
from outside the family because there is nowhere
else to turn, given their loss of the extended
family that served as an important support system
in their home country. In their home country, the
wife was expected to stay at home and run the
household; in America, the counselor insists, both
parents often have to work to raise a family, so
there is no shame in the wife having contact with
people outside the family. 

Confrontation is culturally inappropriate. All
Asian counselors interviewed for this report had
evolved a similar nonconfrontational, Socratic
method of counseling Asian batterers that relies
heavily on metaphors, parables, and analogies,
allowing the men to distance the discussion from
themselves. Oeur avoids labeling one culture or
legal system as "right" and another "wrong,"
instead comparing "the Cambodian way and the
American way," with special emphasis on the
importance of human equality. He asks batterers
what they think is right, leading with questions
like, "Do you think your wife is happy?"
Similarly, Dinh Pham, EMERGE counselor to
Vietnamese batterers, asks the men, "How do you
think domestic violence affects your children?"
Phuong describes the situation of a hypothetical
wife in an abusive relationship and asks the men,
"How would you feel?" After five to eight weeks,
Oeur may confront a client who is still blaming
the victim or denying abuse, but he is careful to
build a strong relationship with the client first. 

Women and children assimilate more easily. All
four counselors noted that Asian clients feel
powerless and threatened by the more rapid
assimilation of their wives and children. Phuong
reported that his Asian clients say, "I came here,
I lost everything, my wife changed. My wife is
into new things. I slap her a little. She calls
the police." In response, he reminds them of
American laws and values and gives concrete
examples of how the men are changing too. Several
counselors reported building on their clients'
desires to learn how to cope with their children's
new behaviors to keep them in counseling and build
more rapport; some clients still attend EMERGE
voluntarily after 40 weeks in order to learn
nonviolent parenting skills.

Police are feared and distrusted. Many immigrants
arriving from Asia have lived under repressive
regimes or have experienced persecution by the
police or the military. As a result, many are
fearful of contact with the criminal justice
system. The impact of this fear on batterer
treatment is twofold: the batterer may feel that
the arrest was unjustified, but he is nonetheless
likely to comply with the court sentence in order
to avoid any further contact. Asian counselors
reported generally low attrition from treatment.
One man reported that following his arrest he was
"scared to death. I told myself, 'I'll never do
this again. I'd rather run away from my wife than
get rearrested,' " even though he still thought
that there was nothing wrong with domestic
violence. 
Latino or Spanish-Speaking Batterer Groups

EMERGE and DAIS both offer Spanish language groups
for batterers. In Seattle, Spanish-speaking
probationers are generally referred to a
neighborhood-based counseling service, Consejo
Counseling. Providers of Spanish language and
homogeneously grouped Latino batterer
interventions raise two issues in this regard.

Latinos who speak Spanish represent diverse
nationalities and cultures. Although they share a
common language, the range of dialects, accents,
and cultural norms attributable to Spanish
speakers in America is extremely broad. Efforts to
make a batterer intervention curriculum relevant
to Spanish-speaking Latinos can flounder on the
question of which culture to portray. For example,
EMERGE's four batterer groups were led by a
Nicaraguan and included Panamanians, Dominicans,
Mexicans, Uraguayans, and American-born Spanish
speakers. Oswaldo Montoya of EMERGE explained that
beyond language, his clients share their identity
as immigrants, economic instability, and low
literacy in their native language. While advocates
of ethnically sensitive interventions recommend
that the group leader's nationality be the same as
that of the participants, as a practical matter
this is often not feasible. For example, in Des
Moines, because of a lack of qualified native
speakers, DAIS hired a white female counselor who
is fluent in Spanish but is not a native speaker.
In Denver, the demand for bilingual workers has
made it economically impossible for AMEND to hire
appropriate staff, despite an out-of-state search.
The short supply of culturally compatible
facilitators is a serious issue for Latino
batterer interventions, since the true focus of
the specialized curriculum is culture, rather than
language. 

Latino values vary according to age. Counselors
reported a cultural gap between young male Latinos
and older Latino men. Young Latino men were
considered by counselors to be less family-
oriented, more dependent on male friends who
portray positive ties with women as a weakness,
and more violent. Montoya reported that the older
men in group were critical of the younger men's
preoccupation with friends over family. He noted
that many of the younger batterers displayed
limited moral development -- for example, more
interest in not getting caught than in giving up
the violence. 

Strategies that programs use with Latino groups
include: 

o discussing the batterer's distortion of the
concept of "machismo," which originally meant "he
who tenderly cares for his family," and the
glorification of abusive behavior as an expression
of manhood, especially to other men;

o challenging ownership of the partner by, among
other techniques, requiring the batterer to call
her by her first name instead of "my wife" (a
technique common to many mainstream
interventions); 

o countering excuses for battering based on
cultural practices in their native country by
letting the group know that they understand the
batterer's perspective, that they too grew up with
the same system, but that battering is illegal in
this country; and

o spending more time discussing and learning to
understand the complicated family ties of clients,
some of whom have had two or three marriages or
cohabitations, have children from different
unions, or have children and family living in
other countries.

Native American Approaches to Batterer
Intervention

Only one jurisdiction visited for the report had a
batterer program based on Native American
traditional practices and beliefs. Ina Maka
(United Indians of All Tribes Foundation) in
Seattle uses a holistic family preservation model
(one that provides child protection, victim
services, and sexual abuse counseling as well as
batterer intervention) combined with Native
American practices such as family counseling by
kias ("grandmas" who provide home-based support
and advice to struggling families), sweat lodges,
and smudging (a cleansing ritual). Ina Maka also
uses case management, individual therapy,
education (including GED classes), job assistance,
parenting classes, art therapy, and role-playing
in its work with batterers. Ina Maka considers
victim safety to be the highest priority but
places almost equal emphasis on its other work:
victim assistance, sexual abuse therapy for both
victims and batterers, child welfare, and drug and
alcohol abuse therapy. To Ina Maka, each of these
emphases is critical to family preservation.

Although their program is designed to serve Native
Americans, it includes white, African American,
and recent immigrant batterers because in Seattle
batterers may choose which intervention they wish
to attend from an approved list provided by
probation. Dan Brewer, a group facilitator,
commented that although groups are integrated
racially and culturally, he has no difficulty
addressing issues of race and oppression: "If they
say the system isn't fair, we agree. But we say,
'There are no accidents; there's a part you played
to get you here.' " Brewer tries to keep the focus
on the batterer and his behavior without
discounting the cultural context: "We'll talk
about the genocide of Native American people, and
draw parallels to slavery; both are colonialism.
We'll talk about, 'What did it do to the family?'
But we are very careful to keep people off
pulpits. We are after knowledge and understanding,
not blame. Why are Mom and Dad and Grandpa and
Grandma the way they are? That happened. Now, what
are we going to do about it?"

Following an extensive daylong intake evaluation
that includes a detailed history of abuse in the
current relationship and the family of origin,
psychological assessment, and drug and alcohol
screening, batterers participate in a three-part,
42-week program.

o Phase I (12 weeks) focuses on anger management,
violent behavior, and feelings associated with
domestic violence.

o Phase II (24 weeks) treats core issues related
to family violence (e.g., power, control, and
belief systems).

o Phase III (6 biweekly sessions) provides
aftercare and support in mixed gender groups.

Sexual abuse is a major topic or personal problem
for batterers in treatment at Ina Maka: all the
female batterers enrolled in the program's first
female group were victims of sexual abuse (see
below, "Heterosexual Female Batterers"). Male
batterers who were victims of sexual abuse are
excused from program fees and may be targeted for
individual counseling. Each batterer is required
to meet with a therapist individually once a month
to discuss issues he or she may not be talking
about in group. Like Asian counselors, group
leaders at Ina Maka take a less confrontational
approach with batterers. According to Arlene Red
Oak, case manager and group facilitator, "It's
O.K. for them to be in denial. They want to work
toward having healthy families." Although Ina Maka
uses a family systems model, it stops short of
couples counseling, telling victims who request
therapy together, "No, you'd kill each other."
Although program facilitators report that
illiteracy is not a problem, program materials are
geared to low literacy levels.

Heterosexual Female Batterers

Batterer interventions for heterosexual female
batterers (who are frequently referred to as
"female defendants" by practitioners because of
the large proportion of self-defending and angry
victims in this classification) are still
relatively rare (see appendix D.5, "Assessment
Questionnaire for Female Offenders "), but all the
jurisdictions visited for this report recognized
the need for special programming for female
batterers. Tina Busey, director of the Court-
Referred Women's Program at Counseling Services in
Denver has, over the last 12 years, formulated a
specialized program to serve this difficult
population most effectively.[22] Busey has
identified four types of female batterers:

o Self-Defending Victims. These women have
multiple injuries, a history of victimization, and
have been threatened with injury or murder if they
attempt to leave the relationship. The partners of
self-defending victims typically have minor
injuries, such as scratches or bites.[23] Police
failure to identify the primary physical aggressor
properly at the time of the arrest -- or the
belief that they are required to arrest both
parties -- brings these victims into the criminal
justice system.

o Mutually Combatant Women. Approximately 2 to 3
percent of female defendants arrested for
battering are in relationships in which both
partners attempt to inflict injury equally on the
other, but neither party has ever been threatened
with murder or sexual abuse.

o Primary Physical Aggressors. Approximately 2
percent of women arrested for domestic violence
are the primary physical aggressors. In these
cases, there are injuries to the man and none to
the woman, and the man has been threatened with
injury or murder if he attempts to end the
relationship.[24]

o Angry Victims. Angry victims have been abused in
the current relationship and in other
relationships as adults. Angry victims begin
fighting back and do not wish to be victims again.

Busey attributes the frequency with which police
arrest self-defending victims to the sometimes
confusing behaviors a victim may display to
police. For example, the victim may feel safe to
express her own anger after the police have
arrived, or the victim may express anger toward
the police because the justice system failed to
protect her in the past. Victims suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may have
angry outbursts or take aggressive postures --
such as picking up a knife -- which they feel are
necessary in order to survive.[25] Hamberger and
Potente's research in Wisconsin shares this
conclusion: "Research with the community sample of
domestically violent [women] indicated most were
motivated by a need to defend themselves from
their partner's assaults, or are retaliating for
previous beatings."[26] Hamberger and Potente
conclude that domestic violence by women is
fundamentally different from violence committed by
men and therefore requires a different
intervention model.

Busey's model of intervention for female
defendants at Counseling Services includes working
with female defendants on the following areas:

o safety plans;

o lethality checklists;

o family of origin (exposure to violence);

o the cycle of violence;

o victimization/revictimization;

o post-traumatic stress disorder;

o anger and stress management;

o substance abuse treatment, if appropriate;

o parenting; 

o women's socialization; and

o healthy adult relationships.[27]

Busey recommends that this treatment be conducted
either individually or in same-sex groups. She
does not recommend couples therapy for female
defendants, both because it may escalate the
conflict and because it is prohibited by the
Colorado Standards for Service Provision to
Battered Women.

Countering the Specialized Programming Trend: The
Compassion Workshop

One new cognitive behavioral intervention based on
attachment theory challenges the trend toward
increased specialization in batterer intervention.
The Compassion Workshop of Prince George's County,
Maryland, founded by psychologist Steven Stosny,
locates the origin of battering and child abuse in
the abuser's use of anger to avoid feeling the
more painful emotions of shame or distress, which
the abuser may experience as being disregarded,
devalued, rejected, powerless, unlovable,
unimportant, accused, guilty, or unfit for
contact. Stosny labels these painful emotions
"core hurts." He employs a cognitive restructuring
technique called HEALS (HEALS is an acronym for
the steps of the cognitive restructuring approach:
Healing, Explain to yourself, Apply self-
compassion, Love yourself, Solve) to short-circuit
the anger batterers feel in order to smother these
more painful feelings before it develops,
replacing the anger with compassion for oneself
and one's partner or child (see exhibit 4-2).
According to Stosny, abusive behavior begins with
inappropriate reactions to a perceived emotional
threat posed by the victim: "I have never met a
dominant, controlling attachment abuser who did
not feel that he was reacting to some form of
manipulation, domination, and control by the
victim; they inevitably feel manipulated by their
own guilt."[28] Stosny postulates that if the
abuser can learn to feel worthy of support and
love ("self-compassion") even in difficult
situations, this lays the groundwork for feeling
positive emotions of attachment toward others,
such as trust, intimacy, and commitment.

The Compassion Workshop is a didactic, future-
oriented, training program consisting of 12 two-
hour sessions and 43 homework assignments. During
the first 6 sessions, clients do not share their
experiences in class, only in their homework.
Stosny reasons, "Given the number of personality
disorders among abusers, 'sharing experience'
tends to involve complaining, arguing, and
confrontation, until clients learn to say what
they need to say to get out of treatment, at which
point their reflexive manipulation grows more
subtle."[29] During this period, clients also sign
agreements to be nonviolent and not to address any
"hot issues" at home. Clients are also given
instruction concerning time-outs and asked to
formulate safety plans to use until they are fully
trained in the HEALS method. The first six weeks
of instruction focus on the development of
internal skills, such as emotional regulation
(including the concept that controlling others
cannot satisfy one's emotional needs), self-
empowerment, and building self-esteem. The second
six weeks focus on applying these skills to
relationship issues, such as avoiding power
struggles, developing relationship skills (e.g.,
regulating fear of abandonment and fear of
engulfment, closeness and distance, resentment and
intimacy), and creating plans for the future. At
the final session, participants read aloud their
"healing letters" in which they apologize to all
their victims and acknowledge the destructiveness
of their past behaviors, outline the steps of
their recovery, and list what they need to do to
continue their recovery. The letters are intended
both as an acknowledge-ment of past abuse and as a
relapse prevention tool to re-view during
vulnerable periods. By postponing the batterer's
admission of violence to the end of the program,
Stosny claims that the letters are composed
voluntarily, without compulsion.

The program uses two short films, Shadows of the
Heart and Compassion. The first film, which shows
domestic violence through the eyes of a five-year-
old who feels responsible for his mother's
victimization, is used to break down resistance to
treatment and to stimulate a feeling of compassion
among clients. Clients are asked to focus on how
they could help the child; the compassionate
feelings evoked by the film are then used as an
example to show that compassion is a more positive
emotion than anger and is more likely to build
self-esteem. The second film depicts how
compassionate behavior can create a greater sense
of personal power than violence.

Advantages and Criticisms of the Compassion
Workshop Approach

A pilot study, using random assignment of court-
ordered spouse abusers to the Compassion Workshop
and to five other batterer programs in Maryland
and Virginia (all of which used some form of the
feminist power and control model), found that,
based on victim reports, 87 percent of Compassion
Workshop participants were violence free (no
pushing, shoving, grabbing) at the end of one
year, compared with 41 percent of the comparison
group participants. Seventy-one percent of the
Compassion Workshop participants were reported to
have avoided any verbal aggression, while only 25
percent of the comparison group were no longer
verbally abusive. One-year follow-up data on 161
court-ordered men and women produced similar
results: 87 percent of the Compassion Workshop
participants were violence free and 76 percent
were not verbally abusive.30 The results have
raised concerns in the field because they are
based on a small sample and because the outcome
data rely solely on victim reports (not on arrest
data). Because a large percentage of abusers are
no longer in a relationship with their original
victim during and after treatment, the success
rates based on victim reports are likely to be
inflated; arrest data would help to provide a
fuller -- but still not complete -- picture of
batterer behavior. Nonetheless, this design flaw
(reliance on victim reports) is common to both the
Compassion Workshop data and those of the
comparison programs, so it cannot account for the
discrepancy in success rates between the two.

The Compassion Workshop session observed for this
report covered problem-solving strategies,
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
in victims (including why partners should not
misinterpret PTSD symptoms as a further
rejection), and healthy ways to regulate intimacy
in a relationship. There was some group discussion
focusing on recent situations in which clients had
used skills from the program to avoid violence.
Although the presentation of program concepts was
at a college level -- and the clients included an
immigrant with limited English as well as working-
class whites and African Americans -- most of the
clients appeared to be engaged by the material and
all were respectful of the group facilitators and
each other. (Stosny reports a program completion
rate of 77 percent.) In contrast to most other
groups observed for this report, which were
typically all-male and cofacilitated by a
professional male/female counseling team, this was
a mixed gender group cofacilitated by Stosny and a
volunteer couple (a former batterer who is a
graduate of the Compassion Workshop and his wife
and former victim, whose role it is to provide the
victim's perspective on the material). A victim
who was voluntarily attending the same group as
her estranged husband commented that the program
had helped her to heal herself and rebuild self-
esteem. She found the format nonthreatening and
appeared at ease in the presence of the mandated
clients. The most marked difference in the
Compassion Workshop group setting as compared to
others observed for this report was the absence of
confrontation, hostility, denial, or "side-
tracking" by the clients.

Compassion Workshop is controversial because it
includes male and female heterosexual batterers,
gay and lesbian batterers, victims, and child
abusers in the same program; allows abusers to
postpone admission of abuse; allows passive
participation; avoids confrontation; downplays the
sociological context of abuse (such as sexism or
racism); and uses a short treatment period (at a
time when treatment for longer than a year is
becoming a goal for many practitioners).
Nonetheless, further evaluation is warranted to
determine whether the low recidivism rates
reported by victims are supported by arrest data.
It is also important to determine whether the
Compassion Workshop model can be effectively
facilitated by other trained group leaders, not
only by Stosny himself.

Conclusion

The search for effective batterer interventions
has led researchers and practitioners alike to
look beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. The
innovations discussed in this chapter should not
be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives;
instead, specialized approaches may be seen as
refinements of practice that can work together to
improve program retention and effectiveness. For
example, criminal-justice-based typologies --
focusing on previous offenses and arrests,
substance abuse histories, and basic demographic
data -- show promise as a tool for judges,
prosecutors, and probation officers to assess risk
and assign batterers appropriate sentences,
including incarceration, intensive probation, or
participation in programs specializing in high-
risk offenders. Programs accepting high-risk
offenders may benefit from intake assessments that
include psychological evaluations to enable them
to couple psychological or substance abuse
counseling with their standard curriculum. All
programs may be able to improve program retention
and decrease resistance to treatment by adopting
culturally sensitive approaches that accommodate
differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, and socioeconomic status. Finally,
recent research in the area of batterer typology,
which points to severe personality disorders in a
quarter of the batterer population, may encourage
practitioners to be more open to the combined use
of educational and psychotherapeutic models with
some batterers.[31] As the notion that all
batterers are the same -- and should receive the
same intervention -- gives way to research that
argues for a multiplicity of batterer profiles,
practitioners from all theoretical camps need to
reconsider the notion that only one intervention
approach can be valid. Finally, because it is not
yet conclusive which -- if any -- of the current
approaches are effective in deterring battering,
State standards and guidelines need to provide a
safe framework for testing innovative intervention
strategies as well as scope for the development
and implementation of specialized batterer
interventions such as those discussed in this
chapter.

Endnotes

1. In 1988, Hamberger and Hastings published a
review of clinical studies of batterers, which
concluded that more effective interventions can be
designed by integrating biological and
psychological factors. The same year, Mary Russell
also published a literature review concluding that
treatment decisions should be made on the basis of
typologies determined by psychopathology,
severity, and context of violence. Hamberger, K.
L. and J. E. Hastings, "Personality
Characteristics of Spouse Abusers: A Controlled
Comparison," Violence and Victims, 3 (1988): 31-
48; Russell, M., "Wife Assault Theory, Research,
and Treatment: A Literature Review," Journal of
Family Violence, 3 (3) (1988): 193-208.

2. Gondolf, E.W. and J. Hannekenn, "The Gender
Warrior: Reformed Batterers on Abuse, Treatment,
and Change," Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2),
(1987): 177-191.

3. Gondolf, E., "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer
Intervention Systems: A Summary of Preliminary
Findings," Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic Addiction
Training Institute, October 24, 1996.

4. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. and G. L. Stuart,
"Typology of Male Batterers: Three Subtypes and
the Differences Among Them," Psychological
Bulletin, 116 (3), (1994): 476-497. Browne, K.,
D.G. Saunders, and K.M. Staecker, "Process-
Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter:
Description of a Brief Treatment Model,"
University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.

5. Dutton, D. and S. Golant, The Batterer: A
Psychological Profile, New York: Basic Books,
1995. 

6. Hamberger and Hastings, "Personality
Characteristics of Spouse Abusers."

7. Goldkamp, J.S., "The Role of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: Dade
County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment,"
Final Report, Philadelphia: Crime and Justice
Research Institute, June 1996.

8. Goldkamp, "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
in Domestic Violence."

9. Gondolf, "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer
Intervention Systems," 4.

10. Goldkamp, "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
in Domestic Violence," 202.

11. Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz,
Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American
Family, New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1980.

12. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996. Preliminary results from Gondolf's four-site
study found that African Americans were 13 percent
more likely to drop out of treatment by three
months.

13. Williams, O., "Ethnically Sensitive Practice
to Enhance Treatment Participation of African
American Men Who Batter," Families in Society: The
Journal of Contemporary Human Services, (1992):
588-595.

14. Williams, O. and L. Becker, "Domestic Partner
Abuse Treatment Programs and Cultural Competence:
The Results of a National Survey," Violence and
Victims, 9 (3) (1994): 287-296.

15. Ibid., 289.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Williams, "Ethnically Sensitive Practice."

19. Cultural traits discussed in this chapter may
also be prevalent among nonminority batterers;
however, program staff interviewed for this report
emphasized these topics in the context of minority
intervention.

20. Dutton, D., "Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The
Ecological Fallacy," Violence and Victims, 9 (2)
(1994): 167-182.

21. Morgaine Wilder speaking at the Preconference
Institute on Lesbian and Gay Domestic Violence,
National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference,
Seattle, Washington, August 31, 1996. 

22. Busey, T., "Treatment of Women Defendants,"
The Catalyst (Spring 1993): 3-4; Busey, T., "Women
Defendants and Reactive Survival Syndrome," The
Catalyst (Winter 1993): 6-7.

23. Sue, H., "Women as Defendants," Applied Group
Research, University of Denver, May 22, 1989,
cited in T. Busey, "Women Defendants and Reactive
Survival Syndrome."

24. Busey, "Women Defendants and Reactive Survival
Syndrome," 6.

25. Ibid.

26. Hamberger, K.L. and T. Potente, "Counseling
Heterosexual Women Arrested for Domestic Violence:
Implication for Theory and Practice," Violence and
Victims, 9 (2)(1994): 125-137. 

27. Busey, "Treatment of Women Defendants."

28. Stosny, S., "Treating Attachment Abuse: The
Compassion Workshop," in Treating Abusiveness, ed.
D. Dutton, New York: Guilford, 1996.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Gondolf, "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer
Intervention Systems"; Saunders, D., "Feminist-
Cognitive-Behavioral and Process-Psychodynamic
Treatments for Men Who Batter: Interaction of
Abuser Traits and Treatment Models," Draft,
University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o Many researchers and practitioners have
concluded that a "one-size-fits-all" intervention
cannot accommodate the diverse population of
batterers entering the criminal justice system.

o The development of more specialized approaches
to batterer intervention is not in conflict with
the trend toward the development of State
standards or certification criteria for batterer
interventions, so long as those standards allow
for a diversity of responsible programming.

o Two new trends in batterer intervention reflect
the perceived need for more specialized
approaches:

-- interventions tailored to specific types of
batterers (batterer typology), such as high-risk
offenders, those with psychological problems, or
substance abusers; and

-- interventions with curriculums or program
policies intended to accommodate sociocultural
differences in batterers, such as poverty, poor
literacy, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender,
and sexual orientation.

o By contrast, the originator of one new
cognitive-behavioral intervention argues that the
problems of diverse batterers can be addressed in
a "one-size-fits-all" format that treats
heterosexual male and female batterers, gay and
lesbian batterers, victims, and child abusers with
one didactic cognitive-behavioral curriculum.

--------------------------------

Typologies Focusing on Rage

Roland Maiuro, of the Harborview Medical Center in
Seattle, has argued for a clinical diagnosis of
"intermittent explosive disorder" for some
batterers. A small proportion of batterers explode
with rage. Research points to some offenders who
are either generally violent toward everyone or
who episodically lack impulse control toward both
intimate partners and other people. 

However, as a practical matter, this type of
batterer frequently is already receiving
specialized treatment. A number of probation
departments consider batterers with extensive
histories of violent criminal behavior or domestic
violence inappropriate for traditional batterer
programs, recommending instead incarceration,
intensive probation, or very long-term, intensive
interventions that incorporate psychological
evaluation and counseling. Similarly, many
standard programs already integrate an "anger
management" component, which uses readings and
cognitive-behavioral exercises designed to help
men recognize the physiological signs of anger and
develop skills to reduce arousal and avoid violent
behavior. 

Maiuro suggests that this approach may be
especially helpful with batterers who are
diagnosed as having intermittent explosive
disorder. However, programs need to make clear to
batterers with this diagnosis that what may appear
to be uncontrollable anger may in fact be
controllable with cognitive-behavioral techniques,
so that they do not use the diagnosis as an excuse
for battering (see "Prohibited Methods/Theories"
in appendix A.3, "State Standards Matrix").

--------------------------------

The Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist

The Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist, a
copyrighted assessment tool developed by Michael
Lindsey, founder of AMEND and The Third Path, and
Frank Robinson, a consultant clinical social
worker to the Department of Probation in the 18th
Judicial District outside of Denver, Colorado, is
a compilation of weighted psychological and
criminal justice risk indicators intended to
classify the batterer for the purposes of
assignment to specialized or mainstream
interventions (see chapter 6, "Sources of Help and
Information").

o Low-risk factors: a child custody dispute;
multiple relationships (cohabitations/
marriages);arrests for nondomestic violence
disturbance; and dysfunction in school, work,
finances, or other relationships (e.g., few
friends).

o Medium-risk factors: having lost contact with
one's children; restricted visitation with one's
children; multiple separations; a partner who left
hurriedly with no warning; a volatile
relationship; aggressive victim-blaming; arrests
with an underlying domestic -violence basis; a
criminal history apart from domestic violence;
violation of a restraining order; no friends or an
alienated family; an admitted pattern of abusive
behavior; multiple charges over a short period of
time; a family history of mental illness,
violence, substance abuse, child abuse, or
multiple living arrangements; admission of guilt
to a lesser charge than the crime; or suicidal
thoughts. 

 o High-risk factors: batterers who are looking
for their partners; have difficulty eating,
sleeping, or working; commit offenses while
separated; have other domestic-violence-related
arrests; stalk their victims; were on probation at
the time of arrest; are suicidal or homicidal;
have a history of substance abuse or were
intoxicated at the time of the offense; deny any
crime; or refuse to "let their partner go."

--------------------------------

Gay and Lesbian Batterer Intervention

Batterer intervention for gays and lesbians is
still in its infancy, and its development suffers
in part from efforts by practitioners and
academics to place gay and lesbian battering
behaviors into a familiar theoretical framework.
For example, Donald Dutton and others contend that
the very existence of battering in lesbian
relationships disproves the feminist theory that
domestic violence is gender-based.[20] Some
feminist practitioners who run groups for lesbian
batterers respond that male and female roles
underpin even same-sex intimate violence. Other
theorists argue that in same-sex relationships,
hierarchies based on cultural identity derived
from class and race may replace gender as the
focus of dominant and power-seeking behaviors.
Still others argue for the need to take into
account personality characteristics as well as
societal influences. Perhaps as a result of this
lack of theoretical consensus, services for gay
and lesbian batterers have been slow to develop.
Another factor delaying the development of
services among homosexuals is the considerable
reluctance to have the problem of partner violence
revealed to the public; many feel the problem
should be handled within the gay community lest it
contribute to negative stereotypes.

A number of differences between homosexual and
heterosexual batterers have treatment
implications. For example, more homosexual
batterers, especially lesbians, are self-referred
because they are unhappy with their own behavior
and its consequences. In part, lesbian batterers'
readiness to recognize that their violence is a
problem they must change may result from their
socialization as females; physical violence
conflicts with the stereotypical female sex role.
According to treatment providers, women are more
anxious to improve the quality of their intimate
relationships. Disclosure of psychological and
family issues is also easier for women. In
general, women are more likely than men to seek
therapy for any issue. The facilitator of a "women
defendants" group (a term used to denote women
charged with battering men) said that, unlike the
men's group she facilitates, women are eager to
participate and volunteer to remain in the group
after their court mandate ends. 

Several providers of services to lesbian batterers
believe that these women find intimacy threatening
because of childhood molestation, so they lash out
with violence as a defense against closeness.
Indeed, Morgaine Wilder, facilitater of lesbian
batterer groups in Berkeley, California, says that
over 70 percent of the women she treats are
victims of childhood sexual abuse.[21] For these
women, in addition to stopping the violence, the
program must also treat the trauma. Some providers
of batterer interventions to lesbians feel that
this underlying issue must be treated in
individual therapy.

As with racial minorities, the question arises
whether there should be separate groups for
homosexual batterers. Negative experiences that
are similar to problems faced by minority men were
reported for lesbians placed in heterosexual male
batterer groups: although lesbians can "do the
work," they are unable to be open and trusting in
the group or to form the peer bonds that allow
group members to challenge and support each other.
Some gay male batterers can succeed in
heterosexual batterer groups if the program is
supportive, makes the theoretical connections
between homophobia and sexism, and considers it
part of the program mission to address homophobia.
However, many gay men do not feel comfortable in
heterosexual batterer groups, and the task of
confronting homophobia may distract facilitators
from the central issue of the men's violence.

--------------------------------

Chapter 5: Criminal Justice Response

Batterer intervention programs are only one link
in a chain of criminal justice responses to
battering. To be effective, not only batterer
intervention programming but all links in the
chain must be strong. Andrew Klein, chief
probation officer for the Quincy, Massachusetts,
District Court argues:

[T]reatment programs alone are rarely enough --
many provide only a small part of what is needed
to stop serious batterers. To be effective, these
programs must operate within the broader context
of a comprehensive intervention effort. Treatment
really begins with the issuance of a restraining
order or arrest for domestic violence and
continues with successful prosecution and
significant, enforced sanctions. Tough monitoring
is also necessary. . . .[1] 

Coordinated criminal justice efforts are
particularly important in combatting domestic
violence because victims of domestic abuse can be
endangered by any breakdown in communication,
failure of training, or lack of follow-through by
criminal justice agencies, batterer interventions,
or victim advocates and liaisons. The opposite is
also true: an efficient, consistent criminal
justice response to battering can reinforce the
message of batterer programs and motivate
batterers to comply with treatment. Sid Hoover,
supervisor of Seattle's Municipal Probation
Domestic Violence Unit, speculates that most
batterers sentenced to probation comply with court
orders to attend batterer programs: 

. . . as a result of what the criminal justice
system has already shown them before they came in
our door -- in other words: "I got arrested, I got
court orders out against me, I can lose my family
and my house, I'm responsible, and I have to do
something to change." They're not going to wait
until they walk in [probation's] door to realize
that, they're going to realize it the first night
they're in jail.

Compliance with probation conditions is a
threshold issue affecting program outcomes: to be
effective, batterer programs must enroll clients
and maintain client cooperation. Klein emphasizes
the importance of the criminal justice context of
batterer intervention when he writes, "When it
comes to changing batterers, we are usually
talking about forced treatment."[2]

This chapter examines steps the criminal justice
system can take to enhance the efficacy of
batterer intervention. The discussion, based on
interviews with criminal justice and program
personnel at five sites (see chapter 3, "Pioneers
in Batterer Intervention"), is divided into three
sections:

o Section one provides an overview of the
principal features of a coordinated systemwide
response to battering (from arrest to prosecution,
sentencing, program referral, and monitoring by
probation or parole) (see the box "Key Components
of an Integrated Criminal Justice Response to
Battering") and then discusses key systemwide
practices that may contribute to -- or impede --
batterer intervention efficacy.

o Section two provides an in-depth discussion of
issues of particular interest to probation
officers who coordinate and oversee batterer
participation in programs and a discussion of
probation services at the five sites.

o Section three discusses ways in which criminal
justice agencies can cooperate and collaborate
with batterer interventions.

Criminal Justice System Issues Affecting Batterer
Intervention

A number of systemwide issues have an indirect but
serious impact on the efficacy of batterer
intervention.

Enrollment in a Batterer Intervention Should Occur
Quickly

Depending on State-level speedy trial laws and the
backlogs faced by local courts, a batterer who
chooses to take his case to trial may extend the
period between arrest and sentencing to three
months or longer. Probation officers and
prosecutors suggest that even under ideal
circumstances the time between sentencing and
program enrollment would on average be six weeks.
In reality, however, several months may be
consumed because of program overcrowding, fixed
program intake dates, client resistance and claims
of indigence, and additional hearings to reorder
uncooperative offenders to programs or to extend
the period allowed for compliance. Gondolf found
that some men entered programs two years after
arrest. According to a Seattle probation officer,
89 percent of probationers miss the first six-week
deadline to enroll in a batterer program; at that
point they are scheduled for a hearing -- usually
three weeks away -- when they are likely to be
given another month to comply. If they continue to
fail to comply, probation officers may shorten the
time between violation and court date, but many
batterers are still able to postpone program
participation for many months.

While many offenders are slow to enroll in court-
ordered programs, many others never show up at
all. In 1994-1995, 350 of the 753 men referred to
House of Ruth in Baltimore failed to appear for
intake. Possible explanations include inability to
pay, arrests for other crimes, flight from the
jurisdiction, or neglect in the vast caseloads of
general probation (intensive probation is
available only for the most serious domestic
violence offenders). In Des Moines, probation
officers report that approximately one-third of
all batterers ordered to probation and batterer
intervention never report for supervision or
program intake. Probation officers notify the
court of the violation and a bench warrant is
issued; however, arrests are rare because of
staffing shortages. In 1996, local police received
a small grant to pay officers overtime to enforce
warrants against batterers. The goal of the
initiative is to rearrest half of the 800
batterers who failed to comply with their court
orders in the last year (including batterers who
failed the program as well as those who never
reported to probation).

Whatever the causes, by allowing slow compliance
and noncompliance with court-ordered batterer
intervention, the criminal justice system not only
creates an appearance of unconcern for the crime -
- which contradicts program messages that
battering is both illegal and socially
unacceptable -- but may also endanger the victim.
Furthermore, delays in program participation may
also limit the deterrent benefit of participating
in batterer programs. Commenting on the
preliminary results of his evaluation of four
batterer interventions, Edward Gondolf speculated
that speed of enrollment in treatment might, upon
further evaluation, predict recidivism better than
the type of criminal justice referral (pretrial
diversion versus conviction), program length, or
program content.[4]

Communities with a centralized domestic violence
docket and a limited number of intervention
providers may be able to schedule program intake
onsite at the time of sentencing. The Domestic
Abuse Counseling Center in Pittsburgh (DACC)
reduced the time lost between sentencing and
program enrollment by instituting program
registration at the courthouse (see exhibit 5-1).
Program Director Wil Avery at House of Ruth
estimated it would require approximately $30,000
per year to fund court-based intake staff because
facilitators and other program staff currently
perform intake on a part-time basis on weekends;
however, the cost of instituting such a change
would be nominal for programs with full-time
intake personnel, which could establish a
satellite office at the courthouse.

Reducing the time between sentencing and contact
with probation also helps to expedite program
referral. In Baltimore, offenders are
simultaneously ordered to report to central intake
at probation and parole and to enroll in a
batterer program. However, if the batterer
disobeys both orders, three months elapse before
central intake begins to write letters to the
batterer's last address; during this period,
neither probation nor House of Ruth is aware that
the batterer has been referred to them by the
courts. By contrast, other jurisdictions impose
stricter and shorter limits on the time a batterer
is permitted to wait before reporting to the
domestic violence probation unit. For example,
probationers participating in a diversion program
in Denver (which requires batterers to enter a
guilty plea in order to participate) are given a
week to report to the program's treatment
provider. If they fail to report after a month,
their probation is revoked and their conviction
entered.

Probation officers and program directors note that
simple procedures, such as faxing program staff
the lists of probationers referred to a specific
program, can help overburdened probation officers
by making it possible for programs to track who is
supposed to have registered and notify probation
when particular offenders have not enrolled.
However, in many jurisdictions, program referral
practices that give probationers a wide choice of
programs to attend make this kind of control
difficult. The standard approach in many
communities, allowing the batterer to choose his
own intervention from a list of approved
providers, may work against prompt enrollment and
make the job of probation officers more difficult.
A more efficient approach might be to allow
probation officers to assign batterers to a
specific program (taking into account the
probationer's neighborhood, special needs, and
financial capabilities). According to probation
officer Dexter Shipman in Colorado's 18th Judicial
District, "We found through experience that if you
give [batterers] two or three programs to choose
from -- some would even ask for the entire list --
they spend two or three months shopping around to
find which program is a dollar cheaper or seems to
fit their schedule perfectly. So we stopped doing
that and now we make specific referrals."

Centralization Improves Service Delivery

A centralized docket for domestic violence cases,
used by the Quincy District Court in
Massachusetts, presents a number of advantages for
all criminal justice agencies that handle domestic
violence cases, especially as domestic violence
cases are increasingly handled by dedicated
domestic violence units or by individuals with
reduced and specialized caseloads.

o Prosecutors who specialize in domestic violence
cases need not waste time traveling from court to
court to try cases. In Baltimore, where the
prosecution of domestic violence cases is
decentralized, municipal domestic violence
prosecutor Ronnie Young is able to serve only five
of nine police districts. The rest are served by
line prosecutors. Following the planned creation
of a centralized docket, Young, along with
additional staff, expects to serve all nine police
districts and to prosecute all batteries,
stalkings, and violations of temporary restraining
orders at one location.

o Probation units located near or in the
courthouse with the domestic violence docket can
receive immediate referrals from the court. One
program reported that as soon as batterers are
sentenced, they are told, "Now walk down that hall
and report to probation before you leave."

o Judges using specialized dockets not only become
expert on domestic violence issues but are also
more likely to note the repeat offender or the
offender who continues to avoid complying with the
terms of his sentence.

o Court-based victim advocates (whether working
with prosecutors or probation officers) need a
centralized, secure facility in or near the court
to provide support and services for victims who
plan to testify. Beth Ledoux, a victim advocate
who worked in both the prosecutor office and
probation department of the Quincy District Court,
emphasizes the need for a secure passage for
victims to the courtroom. When her office was
moved away from the courthouse and housed with
probation several blocks away, Ledoux left her job
because she felt it would be too dangerous for
victims to go for counseling to the same office as
batterers and to travel unprotected between the
office and the court for revocation hearings.

Sheri Yeates, domestic violence prosecutor in King
County (Seattle), raises another issue related to
centralization of services: neighboring
jurisdictions may find it more efficient to
contract with one authority to provide services.
According to Yeates:

Parts of the Municipality of Bellevue are
incorporated, and then there are regions --
literally like fingers in and out -- that are
still unincorporated. So you might live on one
side of the street and the City would respond, and
on the other side of the street King County would
respond. . . . [Bellevue] is contracting with [the
County] to provide services because it is more
beneficial to clients who are moving back and
forth. Victims [from both the County and the City]
will have the same advocate.

Prosecutors and Judges Need Accurate and Complete
Defendant Information

Prosecutors, judges, and probation officers need a
system for accessing relevant defendant
information, including previous arrests (for both
domestic-violence-related and nondomestic violence
offenses, especially those involving assault),
substance abuse history, civil cases and
restraining order information, involvement with
child protective services, and any previous
experience with batterer intervention, to make
proper decisions concerning plea bargains,
sentencing, and bail.

Linda Ferry, supervisor of the Domestic Violence
Unit and Diversion Program in Denver's City
Attorney's Office, describes its method of data
collection:

In this unit, victim advocates intervene
immediately, before the case goes to first
arraignment, to try to determine if there's a
pattern of abuse that's gone on -- reported or
not. We try to garner whatever information we can
from the victim regarding the situation and the
defendant. . . . We have the cooperation of
probation in that effort -- they have a form with
the defendant's State criminal history on it. We
also look up everything that's in the City files,
and we get a pretty good profile.

Prompt data collection is important in Denver,
because approximately one-third of batterers
either plead guilty at first arraignment and are
sentenced to immediate probation or plead "not
guilty" and are given the opportunity to
participate in a diversion program for first-time
offenders with no criminal record. The diversion
program offers a deferred judgment for one year,
and defendants are expected to plead guilty at the
next arraignment if they are accepted for it. The
defendant can also have the case set for trial.
However, because domestic violence defendants are
not eligible for bail until they come before a
judge, Ferry knows that the batterer will not be
released until arraignment and that arraignment
will not be scheduled until the next day --
sufficient time to contact the victim and collect
defendant data. Further screening of candidates
for program diversion is done by an in-house
probation officer for the program, which operates
out of the prosecutor's office. At the initial
interview with the probation officer, diversion
candidates sometimes reveal a criminal record or
simply display an uncooperative attitude that may
disqualify them from diversion. In this program,
batterers who plead guilty but do not qualify for
either immediate probation or the diversion
program -- those who have a significant history of
domestic violence or who are already on probation
-- are referred to probation for a presentence
interview for further information collection and
are likely to receive jail time in addition to
extended probation.

Loss of information -- or failure to obtain
complete information about batterers -- can have
serious consequences for both victims and batterer
programs. Batterers whose behavior has resulted in
police calls to the home, or who have been
arrested but never convicted, may be treated as
"first-time offenders," offered diversion, or
released without bond or a restraining order if
proper research has not been conducted.

Intervention Is Needed for All Batterers

Jurisdictions need to develop program options for
the full range of batterers, not only low-risk
male heterosexual batterers who are amenable to
standard treatment. Many program providers and
probation officers voiced concern that only a
fraction of convicted batterers ever entered
interventions. For example, among the five sites
examined in this study, only Denver has batterer
interventions geared explicitly to high-risk
batterers. As a result, high-risk batterers --
along with those who are incarcerated,
psychologically disturbed, female, gay, non-
English speaking, indigent, or merely
uncooperative -- often fall through the cracks.
Probation should work with local intervention
providers to develop sentencing options for
different categories of batterers that include
intervention.

In Baltimore, probation officers are exploring the
possibility of providing in-house batterer groups
for high-risk batterers and uncooperative
batterers who have been terminated by local
programs. According to Suzanne Sigona, director of
Probation for Denver County, "Obviously, everyone
needs treatment. Even if they've served time in
jail, if they haven'treceived treatment we haven't
really gotten anywhere. We've made the public
happy because [punishment] seems better to them
[than treatment], but we haven't addressed the
[underlying] issue."

As sentencing and program options for a fuller
range of batterers are developed, assessment tools
to assist probation and the courts in assigning
batterers to appropriate interventions must also
be developed. Both the criminal justice-based
assessment of offender risk and amenability to
intervention developed by Goldkamp from his study
of the Dade County Domestic Violence Court and the
more detailed assessment tool used by probation in
Denver's 18th Judicial District to assign
batterers to risk categories suggest ways in which
meaningful assessments can be made quickly with
basic defendant information (see chapter 4,
"Current Trends in Batterer Intervention," for a
full discussion of these assessment tools).

State Service Provider Standards Help Control
Abuses but May Block Program Diversity

In 1996, 28 States and the District of Columbia
had developed standards or guidelines governing
programs or individuals providing batterer
intervention. Another 13 States were in the
process of developing standards or guidelines (see
exhibit 5-2, "Information Matrix on Interventions
for Batterers," and appendix A, "State Standards
Matrix"). While their requirements and
enforceability vary widely, most of these
guidelines are designed to institutionalize
current norms among mainstream batterer
interventions (see chapter 3, "Pioneers in
Batterer Intervention").

Most practitioners in the field welcome these
controls as a deterrent to inexperienced or
unethical counselors who might provide treatment
without proper preparation -- substance abuse
counselors without domestic violence expertise,
for example, who have clients that are also court-
ordered batterers. 

Standards and guidelines may also regulate program
providers who use unconventional techniques (such
as short-term programs or anger management
counseling) or approaches that many consider to be
dangerous to victims, such as couples counseling
(see chapter 2, "The Causes of Domestic
Violence").

While controls are appropriate in a field where
program malfeasance may jeopardize victim safety,
too little is known about the efficacy of current
interventions to create standards that stifle
innovation. For example, in Iowa, where State
standards mandate use of the Duluth curriculum, a
special exception was needed to permit Des Moines
criminal justice and program staff to explore the
use of a different curriculum with high-risk
batterers.

Local networks of program providers and criminal
justice agencies that are still in the process of
developing State standards need to make a
conscious effort not to stifle thoughtful attempts
at innovation (as opposed to reckless disregard
for accepted practices). For example, The
Compassion Workshop operates in Maryland, where
guidelines are still being developed, but would
not be eligible for certification in many States
because of the brevity of the treatment model,
mixed-gender treatment groups, and nontraditional
program curriculum. The program founder, Steven
Stosny, is working with the committee responsible
for developing standards to create a format under
which his program could operate, but he is
encountering resistance among mainstream program
providers to his proposal that the standards
should evolve based on quasi-experimental,
independent program evaluations. For example, if
program evaluations showed that shorter programs -
- such as The Compassion Workshop -- prevent
recidivism as effectively as longer ones, then
(according to his proposal) requirements
stipulating longer treatment periods would be
removed from the standards. In North Carolina,
another State where standards are still under
development, the Empowerment Project was not given
referrals by the local court, and was thus
effectively shut down, because of controversy
surrounding its use of exclusively African
American batterer groups and its African culture-
based curriculum. The Empowerment Project has
survived by shifting its efforts to training
program staff in other States, but its experience
illustrates that even informal constraints on
practice by peers and the criminal justice system
may effectively foreclose the development of new
approaches to batterer intervention.

Ideally, standards should be crafted to foster
innovation while providing safeguards for victims.
For example, State and local boards could provide
oversight for and evaluation of newly proposed
interventions and integrate research findings into
their required or recommended practice models.
Furthermore, better evaluation of existing
programming would allow standards to focus on
performance-based outcomes, rather than
stipulating content.

The implementation of State standards may be
fraught with controversy. In Colorado, licensed
professionals who do not want further requirements
imposed on their practices actively oppose the
training required by the standards. Some probation
officers in the State express concern that
standards result in a "cookie cutter" approach to
batterer intervention when recent research points
to the need for a diversity of approaches,
increased assessment, and specialized intervention
strategies. They note, however, that having no
standards would be more dangerous than having
overly restrictive ones. Colorado's standards are
implemented by local boards in the 22 judicial
districts. According to the Colorado Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, two boards have been
completely inactive, three districts have only one
provider each -- inadequate for their caseloads --
and three other districts have no certified
batterer intervention providers. Local boards have
been sued in several districts and threatened with
lawsuits in eight others because the enabling
statute empowers them to certify programs but is
unclear about their decertification authority.
Fear of liability and disagreements among
treatment providers concerning needed credentials
has limited the boards' effectiveness. In short,
the adoption of standards can be a complex
undertaking that may accelerate the debate
surrounding batterer intervention rather than end
it.

The Key Role of Probation: Batterer Supervision

Probation officers are the most critical link
between the criminal justice system and batterer
interventions. At the five sites visited for this
study, some, if not all, batterers on probation
were selected for intensive supervision by
specialized probation units or designated officers
because officers in general probation supervision
are often too overburdened to provide any
meaningful supervision of batterers. However,
while officers in specialized units can do a
better job, many still feel concerned that their
caseload prevents them from offering all the
services and supervision they believe are
necessary. According to Sid Hoover, supervisor of
Seattle's Municipal Domestic Violence Probation
Unit, "We're doing it as skimpy as you can
imagine. You've got about 180-190 clients, so
you've got 150 on a face-to-face supervision, and
you've got 21 working days to see them all and
deal with all their noncompliance and all their
crazy stuff -- that's not very many minutes per
guy. If we tried to get involved with victim
service the way we feel it should be done it would
dilute [our efforts] so much that we would be
opened up to liability."

With the permission of the court, Hoover had
enlisted a volunteer to provide notifications and
counseling to the 1,100 victims of his unit's
probationers, but after extensive training, the
volunteer quit without explanation. Hoover,
speculating that "it would be asking too much
emotionally" for a volunteer to provide this
service, has decided to wait for funding for a
paid victim advocate.

In Baltimore, prosecutors decide which batterers
are referred to the Family Assault Supervision
Team (FAST) and which are sent to general
probation. In the FAST Unit, each probation
officer supervises an average of 43 cases, for a
total of 316 -- less than a third of all battering
cases sent to probation. These reduced caseloads
allow officers to work closely with victims, many
of whom are illiterate and need special advocacy
to help them assert their rights with criminal
justice agencies. The FAST unit is able to process
a warrant within 24 hours for probationers who are
in violation of their sentences and to maintain
weekly contact with House of Ruth to monitor
batterers' progress in the program. One of the
major problems probation officers face in
Baltimore is how to intervene with sociopathic,
extremely violent, female, or indigent
probationers who are refused by the two programs
in the city. One officer observed that 50 percent
of her caseload was "too violent or scary" for
local interventions. Faced with a lack of local
programming, the FAST unit is researching how it
might provide in-house batterer intervention for
probationers who are terminated from House of Ruth
or are not appropriate for community-based
programs. FAST Field Supervisor Peggy Araya saw
the planned in-house groups as "positive
reinforcement that domestic violence is a crime"
and a way to ensure that all batterers received
some form of intervention.

In Colorado's 18th Judicial District outside of
Denver, more than 90 percent of battering cases
are misdemeanors and, as a result, had never
received any supervision until the chief of
probation decided some form of supervision was
necessary for victim safety. The chief utilized
the Deputy Probation Officer Program -- a corps of
45 volunteers -- to help supervise these low-risk
batterers. In addition to the volunteers, who
maintain small caseloads, a staff officer
supervises all high-risk probationers
(approximately 150 cases): a staff coordinator
monitors the volunteers and screens batterers; a
victim advocate attempts to contact all victims;
and a consultant psychologist performs batterer
risk assessment (see chapter 4, "Current Trends in
Batterer Intervention," for a detailed description
of the assessment tool used). The 18th Judicial
District has had very positive experiences with
using volunteers.

The Quincy District Court Probation Department is
part of an integrated, comprehensive approach to
domestic violence that emphasizes coordination
among criminal justice agencies, batterer
programs, substance abuse treatment programs,
social services, victim advocates, and the
community.[6] Key probation department policies
include:

o preparation of thorough presentencing reports
urging judges to impose strict probation
conditions;

o establishment of the court -- and the probation
officer as a representative of the court -- as the
authority regulating the batterer's relationship
with the victim;

o maximum intensity supervision that may include
weekly batterer program meetings, four weekly
alcohol or substance abuse self-help meetings, one
addiction counseling session, one face-to-face
meeting with their probation officer, and one
weekly alcohol or drug test, with the goal of
almost daily contact with the probationer;

o strict monitoring of batterer program and
substance abuse treatment compliance, with
"compliance" requiring active participation; and

o utilization of the rules of evidence governing
probation proceedings that permit hearsay
testimony (for example, allowing the responding
police officer to testify in lieu of the victim
concerning reports of new abusive incidents), have
a lower standard of proof, and place less emphasis
on the accused's right to confront witnesses than
the rules pertaining to criminal trials.[7]

The principal characteristics that distinguish the
Quincy Probation Department from others visited
for this report were its emphasis on maximum
intensity probation and its focus on substance
abuse as a factor that exacerbates batterer
recidivism. Andrew Klein emphasized that weekly
urine or alcohol tests were so important that the
department would pay for them if the batterer
failed to do so. Until recently, the Quincy
Probation Department had a grant-funded victim
advocate who assisted victims to testify at
probation hearings, provided referrals, and
assisted batterer programs and probation officers
with victim information. However, as mentioned
previously, when the probation department offices
were moved to a location where victims visiting
the probation-based advocate might encounter their
batterers, the advocate quit her work on the
grounds that she might endanger the victims.

Collaboration Among Community Partners

Richard Tolman has argued that the greatest
contribution batterer programs make may not be
their work with individual offenders but rather
their ability to bring together major actors in
the criminal justice and community service sectors
to work cooperatively to reduce domestic violence.
In his view, cooperative efforts among criminal
justice agencies, batterer interventions, victim
advocates, battered women's agencies, and the
community are likely to produce more significant
reductions in battering than any single unit or
program. Tolman also believes that much of what is
important in changing social attitudes toward
domestic violence lies in the coordinated and
consistent messages criminal justice agencies send
through their interactions with victims and
batterers and in criminal justice agencies'
cooperative work with community groups, schools,
and batterer interventions. In this view, changing
the behavior of individual batterers is only part
of the larger policy objective of deterring
everyone from battering their partners.

Jonathan Cohen, assistant director of the
Batterers Intervention Project in New City, New
York, takes this line of reasoning further. Cohen
advises communities without batterer intervention
programs to focus first on creating a coordinated
community response to battering by involving
criminal justice agencies, battered women's
agencies, mental health and medical institutions,
schools, businesses, religious organizations,
child protective services, the media, and social
service agencies. According to Cohen:

Once you realize that coordinated community
response is the level at which men's violence can
be changed or stopped, it's easier to let go of
one's investment in individual men changing [the
aim of most batterer programs].

From a criminal justice perspective, individual
change in batterers is a legitimate and important
goal; however, Cohen's point -- that battering may
be better deterred by coordinated social and
criminal justice policies than by work with
individual batterers -- is an important one and
highlights the need to maintain a broad view of
domestic violence policy while fine-tuning
specific departmental policies affecting batterer
programs.

This section describes formal and informal
collaborations between criminal justice agencies
program staff and community partners that include:

o informal monthly meetings between batterer
intervention providers and probation staff;

o local task forces that coordinate and monitor
citywide or regional domestic violence policies,
including batterer intervention operation; and

o Statewide committees to formulate State-level
standards for batterer programs and other domestic
violence policies.

Informal Cooperation Between Probation and Program
Staff

A common form of collaboration is the informal
monthly meeting between probation officers and
program providers intended to provide a forum for
the discussion of issues of mutual concern and to
encourage communication and cooperation between
criminal justice personnel and program providers.
Seattle's Domestic Violence Intervention Committee
(DVIC) is chaired by the chief probation officer
and initially included both batterer program
providers and victim advocates. These meetings
between probation and program providers were
especially important because they facilitated
communication with a large number of treatment
providers at once. In addition to meeting with
their own service providers, the probation office
was planning to meet with other domestic violence
committees in neighboring jurisdictions at least
quarterly to exchange information. Much of DVIC's
work focuses on building communication among the
various service providers who come into contact
with batterers and their victims. For example,
DVIC sponsored a conference to encourage
information exchange between battered women's
advocates and batterer program providers. A
battered women's advocate praised the conference
for providing a new perspective for advocates,
saying, "It was a different language to them --
one they'd never heard before. [Previously] it was
hard [for us] to understand what batterer
treatment providers deal with."

Discussion at one DVIC meeting focused on plans to
offer a training session on batterer intervention
for substance dependency providers and issues
related to batterers and substance abuse. The
implementation of State standards for batterer
programs was also discussed, as well as plans to
lobby for changes or refinements in the standards.
Other topics included plans for a future meeting
to focus on intervention issues relating to
African Americans and plans to begin offering
batterer programs for incarcerated batterers.

Local Domestic Violence Coordinating Committees

A number of communities have city- or county-level
committees charged with coordinating domestic
violence policy between criminal justice agencies
and the social service sector. Some of these
committees are policymaking bodies, while others
provide a forum for exchanging information on new
domestic violence procedures or programs. In some
States, State standards empower local committees
to certify batterer program providers.

Since 1985, the Mayor's Domestic Violence
Coordinating Committee (DVCC) in Baltimore has
been monitoring and coordinating the criminal
justice and community response to domestic
violence. The DVCC, chaired by Judge Mary Ellen
Rinehardt, administrative judge for the District
Court for Baltimore City, includes representatives
from the local batterer intervention, probation
and parole officers, law enforcement personnel,
pretrial release services staff, the chief
prosecutor of the State's Attorney's domestic
violence unit, and a policy director from the
Mayor's office. The group's central accomplishment
has been to draft and continuously update the
"Baltimore City Domestic Violence Policies and
Procedures," guidelines that are intended to
ensure that 1) domestic violence is treated as a
crime, 2) the offender is held responsible, and 3)
the victim is protected. Ongoing tasks of the
committee include:

o adopting a uniform definition of domestic
violence;

o developing a system for tracking and monitoring
cases;

o developing and coordinating specialized units;

o developing and coordinating training programs;

o strengthening agency policies and procedures;
and

o coordinating effort between the criminal justice
system and batterer program providers.[8]

State-Level Domestic Violence Committees and Task
Forces

State-level committees and task forces on domestic
violence address policy issues such as how to
raise funding for batterer intervention or special
criminal justice units from taxes and fines, the
centralization of funding for domestic violence
services, and legal reforms needed to provide
services to victims or hold batterers accountable.
State committees are also often charged with
developing drafts of standards or guidelines for
the certification of batterer programs.

In Maryland, the State Standards Committee, with
representatives from local criminal justice
agencies, children and family services, batterer
programs, and victim services agencies, discussed
policy issues of general interest and together
considered possible solutions to common problems.
Among the topics discussed were the needs of
victims who are dually diagnosed (those with
substance abuse and mental health issues);
enforcement of child support payments due to
victims within 30 days (so that the family is not
evicted); problems with the funding of children's
services; dangers posed by visitation rights
granted to divorced batterers; lack of funding
sources for batterer programs; and the growth of
national organizations that provide private
defense council to accused batterers and child
abusers. A subcommittee working on a draft
proposal for State standards for batterer
intervention presented key issues to be discussed
at a full session devoted to the topic.

Conclusion

The criminal justice response to domestic violence
is critical to batterer programs because
interventions rely on the criminal justice support
to add force to their work. The examples of
probation supervision at five sites illustrate
that there are many ways to approach batterer
supervision. Nevertheless, probation officers in
all the jurisdictions emphasized the need for:

o maintaining intensive supervision of batterers;

o developing programming options for all
batterers; and

o cultivating good communication with program
providers.

All the examples of cooperation discussed above
contribute positively to the work of batterer
interventions, but the informal meetings between
batterer program providers and probation officers
offer the greatest single opportunity for solving
local issues affecting batterer intervention.
These groups should serve as a resource for city-
and State-level groups that are looking for
guidance in developing local protocols or State-
level standards.

Endnotes

1. Klein, A., Editorial, National Bulletin on
Domestic Violence Prevention, 2 (5) (May 1996):1.

2. Ibid.

3. For a detailed description of an integrated
criminal justice response to domestic violence,
see Gelb, A., The Quincy Court Model Domestic
Abuse Program Manual, Swampscott, MA: Production
Specilaties, n.d. (See chapter 6, "Sources of Help
and Information," for availability.)

4. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22,
1996.

5. Klein, A., Editorial, National Bulletin on
Domestic Violence Prevention, 2 (4) (April 1996):
2.

6. See Gelb, The Quincy Court Model Domestic Abuse
Program Manual.

7. Ibid.

8. "Baltimore City Domestic Violence Policies and
Procedures," Manual, revised 1995: 3.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o Batterer intervention programs alone cannot be
expected to deter domestic violence; strong,
coordinated criminal justice support is also
needed.

o The combined impact of arrest, incarceration,
adjudication, and probation supervision may send a
stronger message to the batterer about the
seriousness of his behavior than what is taught in
a batterer program.

o Criminal justice personnel can take actions at
all points in the criminal justice system to
reinforce the message that battering is a crime
and to support the efforts of batterer programs:

1) -- Expedite Domestic Violence Cases. Adopt
policies to expedite batterers' trial dates,
sentencing, probation contact, and batterer
program intake.

2) -- Use Specialized Units and Centralized
Dockets. Specialized domestic violence prosecution
and probation units, and centralized court dockets
for battering cases and restraining orders improve
services to victims and better coordinate batterer
prosecution, sentencing, and supervision.

3) -- Gather Broad-Based Offender Information
Quickly. Create a system to gather complete
defendant information for prosecutors and judges,
including previous arrests and convictions (for
both domestic violence and other crimes),
substance abuse, child welfare contacts, and
victim information.

4) -- Take Advantage of Culturally Competent or
Specialized Interventions. Maximize effective use
of batterer programming by seeking appropriate
interventions for batterers who are indigent,
high-risk, female, mentally ill, or incarcerated.

5) -- Coordinate Batterer Intervention with
Substance Abuse Treatment. In cases where the
batterer has an alcohol or drug abuse problem,
courts should mandate treatment as well as
batterer intervention. Probation officers should
intensively monitor batterers' compliance with
substance abuse treatment through weekly urine
testing.

6) -- Be Alert to the Risks to Children in
Domestically Abusive Households. Judges and
probation officers should be alert to the danger
posed by domestic violence to children (even to
children who are not themselves physically abused)
and coordinate with child protective services and
programs that specialize in domestically abusive
families to ensure that batterers' children are
safe and are receiving appropriate services. 

7) -- Create a Continuum of Supports and
Protection for Victims. Victim advocates should be
provided to monitor victim safety and to assist
victims with the criminal justice system from the
time of the assault through trial and/or
probation. Victim advocates attached to probation
units are particularly important in monitoring the
safety of women whose batterers are sentenced to a
batterer program.

8) -- Encourage Interagency Cooperation. Organize
formal coordinating committees of probation
officers, prosecutors, battered women's advocates,
child protection workers and batterer intervention
providers to discuss batterer referral and
monitoring policies regularly.

o State standards are needed to deter
inexperienced or unethical counselors but may
inadvertently stifle innovation.

o Probation supervision is central to criminal
justice policy concerning battering and
cooperation with batterer interventions.

--------------------------------

Key Components of an Integrated Criminal Justice
Response to Battering

Batterer intervention programs are unlikely to
change offender behavior without the support and
cooperation of the criminal justice system.
Supportive system responses include coordination
among agencies, the use of victim advocates
throughout the system, the designation of special
units or individuals responsible for handling
battering cases, and the provision of appropriate
training for personnel concerning domestic
violence issues and procedures.[3]

Law enforcement officers need training to increase
their sensitivity to the needs of victims and to
investigate allegations of domestic violence
thoroughly, including filing reports of calls
where no arrests were made. Law enforcement
officers need to be able to:

o identify the primary aggressor, including
understanding the effects of post-traumatic stress
disorder and issues concerning same-sex couples
(see box, "Determining the Primary Physical
Aggressor");

o execute a proarrest or mandatory arrest policy;

o gather evidence at the scene, including
photographs and statements that may be important
to the prosecution if the witness does not wish to
press charges; and

o arrange for a temporary restraining or no-
contact order.

In addition, law enforcement officers need to
enforce bench warrants issued for batterers who
have not reported to probation or whose probation
has been revoked for program noncompliance.

Pretrial screening for offenders charged with
domestic-violence-related offenses needs to ensure
that batterers are not released on their own
recognizance or on bail before arraignment.
Pretrial services personnel need to gather as much
background data as possible for the prosecutor and
judge, including history of prior arrests,
convictions, domestic violence arrests and
convictions, any previous batterer intervention,
and substance abuse.

Selected prosecutors should specialize in domestic
violence cases. They need adequate support from
police, probation officers, and victim advocates
to be able to follow through on domestic abuse
cases and to pursue the volume of cases generated
by a proarrest policy or a mandatory arrest
statute.

Prosecutors need to:

o pursue cases without victim testimony, if
necessary, so that victims do not need to confront
their batterers to use the criminal justice
system; 

o use a vertical prosecution model to increase
victim cooperation and prosecutor familiarity with
each case;

o keep offender files containing information
concerning previous arrests and convictions,
substance abuse history, child protective services
contact, reports from probation, and recorded
statements made by the defendant to the court
(e.g., "I couldn't register for batterer treatment
because my grandmother died"); 

o make use of victim advocates (see below) both to
assist in case preparation and to reduce the
victim's anxiety during prosecution;

o pursue probation revocations in domestic
violence cases with the same urgency as the
original case, since a revocation hearing
indicates renewed danger to the victim; and

o request batterer intervention program
participation as a condition of probation or other
sentence.

System-based victim advocates should be available
to victims at all stages of the criminal justice
process. Advocates attached to specialized police,
prosecutor, and probation units need to:

o establish contact with the victim as quickly as
possible (some now accompany police to the scene
of the complaint);

o explain the criminal justice system to the
victim;

o gather evidence for police and prosecutors;

o assist the victim with safety planning and
provide service referrals;

o notify victims of key offender events (such as
termination from program) and other imminent
threats to their safety;

o assist probation officers by monitoring batterer
compliance with sentencing conditions through
victim reports; and

o assist victims to testify in court at trial and
probation revocation hearings.

Advocates from different departments and agencies
need to coordinate their services, so that victims
are not "dumped" following prosecution and so that
multiple service referrals are not made.

Judges, preferably assigned to centralized special
domestic violence dockets, need to be willing to
issue meaningful and appropriate sentences --
including jail time, mandatory participation in
batterer intervention programs, participation in
substance abuse treatment, and fines or community
service, depending on the circumstances of the
case. Courts need to process domestic violence
cases quickly and require prompt enrollment in a
batterer program and immediate contact with
probation, if these are terms of a batterer's
sentence. Judges should also respond forcefully,
with graduated sanctions, to reports from
probation and program staff that a batterer is not
abiding by the terms of his sentence, including
failure to comply with the rules of the batterer
program. Judges also need to be familiar with
State standards for batterer programs (where they
exist) to guide them in the sentencing of
batterers.

Finally, judges need to be alert to the co-
occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse,
and the dangers posed to children who witness
domestic violence. Judges should coordinate
batterer intervention with child protective
services programming where appropriate and
familiarize themselves with new programming
targeting batterers who also abuse children in
their care.

Probation officers, organized in specialized
domestic violence units with reduced caseloads,
need to provide intensive probation supervision.
They also need to understand the issues
surrounding domestic violence, batterer
interventions, and emerging batterer typologies in
order to supervise and monitor batterers
effectively, including ensuring that they comply
with their sentences. Probation officers also need
to:

o prepare thorough presentencing reports on
batterers (see below);

o obtain information on batterers sentenced to
probation in a timely manner and issue warrants
for batterers who do not report to probation;

o develop assessment tools or referral policies to
assist in assigning batterers to appropriate
batterer programs;

o provide intensive supervision for all batterers;

o develop resources for supervising batterers who
are not accepted by or are not appropriate for
mainstream batterer interventions; and 

o assess batterer drug and alcohol abuse and
closely monitor batterer sobriety with random drug
and alcohol screening, when appropriate.

Finally, probation officers can take the lead in
establishing at least monthly meetings between
batterer intervention service providers and
probation officers to discuss difficult cases and
other issues of mutual concern (see p. 95, "Local
Domestic Violence Coordinating Committees").

To assist criminal justice personnel, batterer
programs need to:

o provide regular reports to probation and the
courts, tracking who has enrolled, offender
cooperation with program requirements, sobriety,
and sentence compliance;

o have contact with advocates for the victims of
their clients and provide timely notification to
the victim and probation -- or any other
appropriate agency -- if a new threat to victim
safety arises;

o meet regularly with representatives of the
domestic violence probation and prosecution units
to discuss topics of mutual concern (see p. 94,
"Collaboration among Community Partners"); and

o meet regularly with representatives of
independent battered women's programs to discuss
topics of mutual concern.

--------------------------------

Pittsburgh's Domestic Abuse Counseling Center
(DACC): Short-term Programming With Strong
Criminal Justice and Community Links

DACC is a nonprofit program offering batterer
intervention at 15 sites in Western Pennsylvania.
DACC uses an innovative combination of batterer
counseling, broad-based community education, and
coordinated community response featuring
collaborative efforts with social service
agencies, the criminal justice system, battered
women's agencies, and health organizations
(including substance abuse and mental health
providers). DACC's approach is notable for several
features:

o in-court intake personnel who facilitate
batterer enrollment within two weeks of arrest and
schedule program orientation within three weeks of
arrest (see exhibit 5-1, "Domestic Abuse
Counseling Center (DACC) Timeline/Flowchart");

o a diversion program monitored directly by the
court at regular intervals (three mandatory court
reviews in four months; see exhibit 5-1);

o a short-term cognitive behavioral intervention
(16 weekly 90-minute sessions);

o a pilot program offering an intensive
intervention (three meetings per week) for high-
risk or repeat offenders who are not appropriate
for entry into the general program. Offenders
remain in the intensive program until they display
appropriate attitudes and behaviors for entry into
the regular program; 

o dual tracking of batterers with substance abuse
or mental health issues. DACC provides case
management and monitoring for batterers
participating in substance abuse or mental health
counseling;

o a specialized intervention group for law
enforcement officers; and

o a court liaison who provides information,
consultation, and case review for the Domestic
Violence Court to expedite proceedings and ensure
appropriate court action.

DACC was chosen for a multisite evaluation
sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control,
which is still under way. A 1993-1994 evaluation
found that program participants were nonviolent
for at least six months following the program, and
half the victims reported feeling "very safe" at
the six-month follow-up.

--------------------------------

 Determining the Primary Physical Aggressor: A
Knotty Issue for Law Enforcement

Counselors and victim advocates express concern
that some batterers referred to programs -- mostly
women and homosexuals -- have been improperly
identified as the primary aggressor. Because
studies have found that the majority of women
arrested for battering are so-called "self-
defending victims" (see chapter 4, "Current Trends
in Batterer Intervention"), the proper
identification of the primary physical aggressor
is extremely important in order to avoid both
revictimizing these women and wasting criminal
justice resources. Similarly, advocates for
battered gays and lesbians caution police not to
assume that the physically larger partner is
always the primary aggressor; as with other
couples, care must be taken to question the couple
and any witnesses closely before making an arrest.
It is equally important for police officers to
avoid dual arrests, which may not only involve
arresting innocent parties but also make it
impossible to prosecute anybody. Victim advocates
note that mistaken identification of the primary
aggressor may occur at the scene because bruises
caused by battering may take hours to appear,
whereas some signs of defensive violence, such as
scratching or biting, are immediately apparent.
Advocates also emphasize the importance of
determining if there has been a history of abusive
incidents -- or a recent escalation of abuse --
which may have led the victim to react fearfully
and more violently to a perceived or real threat.
In some instances, police may find a chaotic scene
where it is not readily apparent which party is
the perpetrator and which is the victim. For
example, victims may feel safe to express anger
against the batterer in the presence of police,
thereby giving the impression they are the
perpetrators, or may even verbally abuse the
police. Linda Ferry, supervisor of the Domestic
Violence Unit in Denver's City Prosecutor's
office, cautions police not to be provoked into
arresting both parties by an angry victim's
disrespectful conduct: "As much as police may get
satisfaction from [arresting both parties], not
'shutting up' is not criminal" -- or indicative of
who the batterer is. One technique to avoid dual
arrests is to distinguish between the initial
aggressor and the person who has been most
severely injured as a result of the violence. In
addition, Ferry tells officers to get as much
information as possible at the time of the arrest
because, "as uncooperative as somebody might seem
at the scene, they're going to be worse later."
Before taking statements officers need to separate
the parties, making sure that both are out of
eyesight and earshot of each other. In instances
where both parties exhibit signs of injury,
officers should consider the possibility of self-
defense and examine the relative level of injury
or force involved.

--------------------------------

Diversion Sends the Wrong Message

In the 1970's the United States Civil Rights
Commission drew attention to the negative
symbolism evoked by diverting battering cases.
Today there is little controversy on this point;
California recently banned the diversion of
domestic violence cases.[5] In another State, in a
jurisdiction where diversion is used, a guilty
plea is a prerequisite for participation. Because
fewer than 5 percent of cases are resolved in that
manner, 95 percent of batterers are effectively
excluded from program participation. As a result,
batterers most likely to qualify for these "cream-
of-the-crop" diversion programs are better
educated, middle-class professionals who accept
treatment, rather than take their case to trial,
in the hope of avoiding a criminal record. While
diversions such as these may make sense in terms
of efficient case disposition, Quincy probation
chief Andrew Klein cautions, "Actions speak louder
than words -- diversion says battering is
trivial." Other experts caution that a wide range
of sentencing arrangements are swept together
under the rubric of "diversion" and that some of
these arrangements provide access to swift program
enrollment while maintaining batterer
accountability (see box, "Pittsburgh's Domestic
Abuse Counseling Center").

--------------------------------

Chapter 6: Sources of Help and Information

A number of resources are available to batterer
intervention program staff and criminal justice
professionals who work with batterer programs.
This chapter includes:

o sources of batterer intervention training and
materials;

o a listing of materials and information on
battering and batterer intervention written from a
criminal justice perspective;

o national organizations concerned with domestic
violence that can assist criminal justice
personnel and batterer intervention providers with
information, training, technical assistance, or
referrals; 

o a directory of State coalitions on domestic
violence;

o a list identifying agencies and individuals that
are responsible for formulating, approving, or
implementing State batterer intervention standards
or guidelines;

o a list of individuals willing to share their
expertise in batterer intervention, specialized
interventions, and criminal justice links to
batterer programs; and

o a selected bibliography, organized by topic,
highlighting standard texts, new publications of
interest, and key program materials. 

Batterer Intervention Training and Materials

The following organizations provide training for
batterer intervention personnel.

National Training Project
Duluth Domestic Abuse Training Project
206 W. Fourth Street
Duluth, MN 55806
(218) 722-2781, ext. 111

Training by the National Training Project is
required for programs that wish to use the Duluth
curriculum. Contact Tina Olsen, National Training
Project Coordinator.

EMERGE: Counseling and Education to Stop Domestic
Violence
2380 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 101
Cambridge, MA 02140
(617) 547-9879
(617) 547-0904 (fax)

EMERGE offers four services that may be of use to
practitioners: 

o a four-day intensive course for counseling men
who batter, which is offered several times a year
and is approved for continuing education credits
for social workers and alcohol counselors;

o publications on batterer intervention and
working with specialized batterer populations,
some of them in Spanish, which may be purchased by
mail;

o information concerning an educational curriculum
for adolescents available from the Dating Violence
Intervention Project, an EMERGE partner; and

o a two-day intensive course for counseling
adolescent batterers, offered several times per
year and also approved for continuing education
credits for social workers and alcohol counselors.

National Training Institute
Batterers Intervention Project
South Main Street
New City, New York 10956
(914) 634-5729
(914) 634-7839 (fax)
Contact: Phyllis Frank, Ph.D.

The National Training Institute provides technical
assistance and professional training based on an
educational approach. It provides training in all
aspects of the New York State model but will
tailor training to the needs of agencies from
different States.

The Empowerment Project
2722 Bancroft Street
Charlotte, NC 28206
(704) 372-8878/344-9311
Contacts: Sunya Faloyan and Radhia Jaaber,
cofounders

The Empowerment Project has developed a still
evolving curriculum to address batterers of
African descent. Program development consulting is
available.

Criminal Justice Materials and Information

The following resources may assist criminal
justice professionals in formulating a coordinated
response to battering and in assessing batterers
who are mandated to interventions.

Quincy District Court Model Domestic Violence
Response Materials
Quincy Court/Polaroid Information Service
P.O. Box 100
Penfield, NY 14516-9958
(800) 662-8337, ext. 62

The Quincy Court Model Domestic Abuse Program is
an award-winning project that has been recognized
as a national model by the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges and replicated
throughout Massachusetts. Polaroid is a corporate
sponsor for the production of the following
informational materials and product catalogs:

o Quincy Domestic Violence Community Response
Guide

o Quincy Domestic Violence Probation Response
Guide

o Quincy Domestic Violence Police Response Guide

o Domestic Violence Use of Photography Overview

o Law Enforcement Product Catalog

o Law Enforcement Curriculum Guide

o Instant Evidence Domestic Violence Edition

o Kidcare Event Guide

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS)
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs_aspensys.com

NCJRS, a service sponsored by the National
Institute of Justice, provides access to free
government publications (including a number of
those listed in the Selected Bibliography) and
assistance with criminal justice research.

Criminal Justice Manuals and Videos
(800) 932-4632

The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic
Violence (PCADV) offers a number of criminal
justice resources, including manuals,
instructional videos, pamphlets, and posters. The
following manuals relate to batterer intervention:

o Accountability: Program Standards for Batterer
Intervention Services ($15)

o Safety for Women: Monitoring Batterers' Programs
($25/$15 for domestic violence -- programs)

o Confronting Domestic Violence: Effective Police
Response ($15)

o Prosecuting Domestic Violence Crimes: A Training
Guide ($35)

o Seeking Justice: Legal Advocacy Principles and
Practice ($50/$40 for domestic violence programs)

o Domestic Violence Protection Orders Handbook
($15)

Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist

Michael Lindsay and Frank Robinson have developed
a copyrighted page-long checklist to assist
probation officers with batterer risk assessment.
For information contact:

Frank Robinson, Ph.D.
Department of Probation
18th Judicial District
1610 Littleton Boulevard
Littleton, CO 80120
(303) 794-4890

National Organizations Concerned With Domestic
Violence

The following national organizations provide
current information concerning battering, batterer
intervention, and legal issues related to
battering.

Battered Women's Justice Project: (800) 903-0111

The project provides training, technical
assistance, and resources through a partnership of
three nationally recognized organizations. After
dialing the central "800" number, callers may
choose from three extensions:

o Extension #1: Domestic Abuse Intervention --
Project

Addresses the criminal justice system's response
to domestic violence, including the development of
batterer programs.

(612) 824-8768 (TDD)
(612) 824-8965 (fax)

o Extension #2: Pennsylvania Coalition Against
Domestic Violence

Addresses civil court access and legal
representation issues of battered women. Provides
comprehensive information, resources, policy
development, and technical assistance designed to
prevent domestic violence and to enhance community
response.

(717) 671-4767
(717) 671-5542 (fax)

o Extension #3: National Clearinghouse for the
Defense of Battered Women

Addresses battered women's self-defense issues.

(215) 351-0010
(215) 351-0779 (fax)

Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic
Violence
936 North 34th Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98103
(206) 634-1903
(206) 634-0115 (fax)

Provides training and educational materials
(articles, videos) to the religious community on
sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence
Family Violence Prevention Fund
383 Rhode Island Street, Suite 304
San Francisco, CA 94103-5133

(800) 313-1310
(415) 252-8991 (fax)

Provides specialized information packets designed
to strengthen the health care response to domestic
violence, as well as technical assistance and
library services to support training and program
development.

Resource Center on Child Custody and Child
ProtectionNational Center for Juvenile and Family
Court Judges (NCJFCJ)
P.O. Box 8970
Reno, NV 89507
(800) 527-3223
(702) 784-6160 (fax)

Provides information, consultation, technical
assistance, and legal research related to child
protection and custody issues within the context
of domestic violence.

National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape
2325 Oak Street
Berkeley, CA 94708
(510) 524-1582

Provides fee-based phone consultations ($30 per
year for organizations / $15 per year for
individuals, plus hourly rate) offering research
assistance, referral to marital rape experts,
information concerning State rape laws. Speakers
bureau of marital or date rape survivors.
Information packet including State law chart,
bibliography, and statistics, $10, prepaid.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 18749
Denver, CO 80218
(303) 839-1852
(303) 831-9251 (fax)

Provides statistics, articles, and research
assistance on domestic violence.

State Coalitions on Domestic Violence

The following coalitions may be contacted for
information about local batterer interventions,
shelters, and community coalitions concerned with
domestic violence. In addition, many coalitions
are involved with the development of batterer
intervention standards or guidelines in their
States.

Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 4762
Montgomery, AL 36101
(334) 832-4842
(334) 832-4803 (fax)

Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault
130 Seward Street, Room 501
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 586-3650
(907) 463-4493 (fax)

Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
100 West Camelback Street, Suite 109
Phoenix, AZ 85013
(602) 279-2900
(602) 279-2980 (fax)

Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence
#1 Sheriff Lane, Suite C
Little Rock, AR 72114
(501) 812-0571
(501) 371-0450 (fax)

California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
619 Thirteenth Street, Suite I
Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-1888
(209) 524-0616 (fax)

Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition
P.O. Box 18902
Denver, CO 80218
(303) 831-9632
(303) 832-7067 (fax)

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence
135 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(860) 524-5890
(860) 249-1408 (fax)

D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 76069
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 783-5332
(202) 387-5684 (fax)

Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 847
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-2958
(302) 658-5049 (fax)

Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence
1535 C-5 Killearn Center Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(800) 500-1119
(904) 668-6862
(904) 668-0364 (fax)

Georgia Advocates for Battered Women and Children
250 Georgia Avenue, S.E., Suite 308
Atlanta, GA 30312
(800) 643-1212
(404) 524-3847
(404) 524-5959 (fax)

Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
98-939 Moanalua Road
Aiea, HI 96701-5012
(808) 486-5072
(808) 486-5169 (fax)

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
1540 High Street, Suite 100
Des Moines, IA 50309-3123
(800) 942-0333
(515) 244-8028
(515) 244-7417 (fax)

Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic
Violence
200 North Fourth Street, Suite 10-K
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 384-0419
(208) 331-0687 (fax)

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence
730 East Vine Street, Suite 109
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 789-2830
(217) 789-1939 (fax)

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence
2511 East 46th Street, Suite N-3
Indianapolis, IN 46205
(800) 332-7385
(317) 543-3908
(317) 568-4045 (fax)

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic
Violence
820 S.E. Quincy, Suite 416
Topeka, KS 66612
(913) 232-9784
(913) 232-9937 (fax)

Kentucky Domestic Violence Association
P.O. Box 356
Frankfort, KY 40602
(502) 875-4132
(502) 875-4268 (fax)

Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 3053
Hammond, LA 70404-3053
(504) 542-4446
(504) 542-6561 (fax)

Maine Coalition for Family Crisis Services
128 Main Street
Bangor, ME 04401
(207) 941-1194
(207) 941-2327 (fax)

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence
11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 403
Silver Spring, MD 20902-1955
(800) MD-HELPS
(301) 942-0900
(301) 929-2589 (fax)

Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women's
Service Groups/Jane Doe Safety Fund
14 Beacon Street, Suite 507
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 248-0922
(617) 248-0902 (fax)

Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 16009
Lansing, MI 48901
(517) 484-2924
(517) 372-0024 (fax)

Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women
450 North Syndicate Street, Suite 122
St. Paul, MN 55104
(800) 646-0994 (in 612 Area Code)
(573) 646-6177
(573) 646-1527 (fax)

Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence
331 Madison Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(314) 634-4161
(314) 636-3728 (fax)

Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic
Violence
P.O. Box 4703
Jackson, MS 39296-4703
(800) 898-3234
(601) 981-9196
(601) 982-7372 (fax)

Montana Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 633
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 443-7794
(406) 449-8193 (fax)

Nebraska Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Coalition
315 South Ninth #18
Lincoln, NE 68508-2253
(800) 876-6238
(402) 476-6256 

Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
2100 Capurro Way, Suite E
Sparks, NV 89431
(800) 500-1556
(702) 358-1171
(702) 358-0546 (fax)

New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and
Sexual Violence
P.O. Box 353
Concord, NH 03302-0353
(800) 852-3388
(603) 224-8893
(603) 228-6096 (fax)

New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women
2620 Whitehorse/Hamilton Square Road
Trenton, NJ 08690
For Battered Lesbians: (800) 224-0211 (in NJ only)
(609) 584-8107
(609) 584-9750 (fax)

New Mexico State Coalition Against Domestic
Violence
P.O. Box 25363
Albuquerque, NM 87125
(800) 773-3645 (in NM only)
(505) 246-9240
(505) 246-9434 (fax)

New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
79 Central Avenue
Albany, NY 12206
(800) 942-6906
(518) 432-4864
(518) 432-4864 (fax)

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 51875
Durham, NC 27717
(919) 956-9124
(919) 682-1449 (fax)

North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services
State Networking Office
418 East Rosser Avenue, Suite 320
Bismarck, ND 58501
(800) 472-2911 (in ND only)
(701) 255-6240
(701) 255-1904 (fax)

Ohio Domestic Violence Network
4041 North High Street, Suite 101
Columbus, OH 43214
(800) 934-9840
(614) 784-0023
(614) 784-0033 (fax)

Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault
2200 North Classen Blvd, Suite 610
Oklahoma City, OK 73801
(800) 522-9054
(405) 557-1210
(405) 557-1296 (fax)

Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence
520 Northwest Davis Street, Suite 310
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 223-7411
(503) 223-7490 (fax)

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic
Violence/National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence
6440 Flank Drive, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17112-2778
(800) 932-4632
(717) 545-6400
(717) 545-9456 (fax)

Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
422 Post Road, Suite 104
Warwick, RI 02888
(800) 494-8100
(401) 467-9940
(401) 467-9943 (fax)

South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
& Sexual Assault
P.O. Box 7776
Columbia, SC 29202-7776
(800) 260-9293
(803) 750-1222
(803) 750-1246 (fax)

South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
P.O. Box 141
Pierre, SD 57401
(800) 572-9196
(605) 945-0869
(605) 945-0870 (fax)

Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 120972
Nashville, TN 37212
(800) 356-6767
(615) 386-9406
(615) 383-2967 (fax)

Texas Council on Family Violence
8701 North Mopac Expressway, Suite 450
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 794-1133
(512) 794-1199 (fax)

Domestic Violence Advisory Council (Utah)
120 North 200 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84145
(800) 897-LINK
(801) 538-4100
(801) 538-3993 (fax)

Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual AssaultP.O. Box 405
Montpelier, VT 05601
(802) 223-1302
(802) 223-6943 (fax)

Virginians Against Domestic Violence
2850 Sandy Bay Road, Suite 101
Williamsburg, VA 23185
(800) 838-VADV
(804) 221-0990
(804) 229-1553 (fax)

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic
Violence
2101 Fourth Avenue East, Suite 103
Olympia, WA 98506
(800) 562-6025
(360) 352-4029
(360) 352-4078 (fax)

West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence
P.O. Box 85
181B Main Street
Sutton, WV 26601-0085
(304) 765-2250
(304) 765-5071 (fax)

Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence
1400 East Washington Avenue, Suite 232
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-0539
(608) 255-3560 (fax)

Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault
341 East E. Street, Suite 135A
Pinedale, WY 82601
(800) 990-3877
(307) 367-4296
(307) 235-4796 (fax)

Information Concerning State and Local Standards
and Guidelines on Batterer Intervention

The chart on pages 104-107 provides contact names,
addresses, and telephone numbers for organizations
and offices involved in administering or
developing batterer intervention standards and
guidelines. The information in appendix A, "State
Standards Matrix," was current as of November
1996.

Selected Bibliography

General Information

Campbell, J.C., ed. Assessing Dangerousness:
Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child
Abusers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
1995.

Dutton, D. and S. Golant. The Batterer: A
Psychological Profile. New York: Basic Books,
1995.

Edelson, J. and R.M. Tolman, Intervention for Men
Who Batter: An Ecological Approach. Newbury Park,
CA; Sage Publications, 1992.

Gelles, R. and D.R. Loseke. Current Controversies
on Family Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1993.

Pence, E. and M. Paymar, Education Groups for Men
Who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer,
1993.

Sirles, E.A., S. Lipchik, and K. Kowalski. "A
Consumer's Perspective on Domestic Violence
Interventions." Journal of Family Violence, 8(3)
(1993): 267.

Stosny, S. "Treating Attachment Abuse: The
Compassion Workshop." In Treating Abusiveness, ed.
Donald Dutton. New York: Guilford, 1996.

Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz. Behind
Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New
York: Doubleday, 1980.

Straus, M. and R. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence
in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions
to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 1990.

Yllo, K. and M. Bograd. Feminist Perspectives on
Wife Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
1988.

Resources for Practitioners

Adams, D., L. Bancroft, T. German, and C. Sousa.
Program Manual: First State Groups for Men Who
Batter. Quincy, MA: EMERGE, 1992.

Davies, J. Using Safety Planning As an Approach to
Woman-Defined Advocacy. Legal Aid Society of
Hartford County, CT, 1994.

Ganley, A. "Understanding Domestic Violence." In
Improving the Health Care Response to Domestic
Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care
Providers. Harrisburg, PA: Family Violence
Prevention Fund and the Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, n.d.

Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service
Groups. For Shelter and Beyond: Ending Violence
Against Women and Their Children, 2d ed. Boston:
Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service
Groups, n.d.

Sousa, C., L. Bancroft, and T. German. "Preventing
Teen Dating Violence: A Three Session Curriculum
for Teaching Adolescents." Cambridge, MA: Dating
Violence Intervention Project, n.d.

State of Iowa. Final Report of the Supreme Court
Task Force on Courts' and Communities' Response to
Domestic Abuse. State of Iowa, submitted to the
Supreme Court of Iowa, August 1994.

Criminal Justice Issues

Buzawa, E. and C. Buzawa. Do Arrests and
Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1996.

Buzawa, E. and C. Buzawa. Domestic Violence, The
Criminal Justice Response, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Hamberger, K.L. and J.E. Hastings. "Court-Mandated
Treatment of Men Who Assault Their Partner:
Issues, Controversies, and Outcomes." In Legal
Responses to Wife Assault, ed. N. Z. Hilton,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993: 188-
229.

James, N. "Domestic Violence: A History of Arrest
Policies and a Survey of Modern Laws." Family Law
Quarterly, 28 (3) (1994): 509-515.

Rosenfeld, B.D. "Court-Ordered Treatment of Spouse
Abuse." Clinical Psychology Review, 12 (1992):
205-226.

Syers, M. and J. Edelson. "The Combined Effects of
Coordinated Criminal Justice Intervention in Woman
Abuse." Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7: 490-
502.

Specialized Populations and Intervention
Strategies

Browne, K., D.G. Saunders, and K.M. Staecker.
"Process-Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter:
Description of a Brief Treatment Model."
Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan,
January 26, 1996.

Busey, T. "Treatment of Women Defendants." The
Catalyst (Spring 1993): 3-4.

Busey, T. "Women Defendants and Reactive Survival
Syndrome." The Catalyst (Winter 1993): 6-7.

Coleman, V.E. "The Relation Between Personality
and Perpetration of Violence." Violence and
Victims, 9 (2) (1994): 141.

Dutton, D. "Trauma Symptoms and PTSD-like Profiles
in Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse." Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 8(2) (1995): 299-316.

Hamberger, K.L. and T. Potente. "Counseling
Heterosexual Women Arrested for Domestic Violence:
Implication for Theory and Practice." Violence and
Victims, 9 (2) (1994): 125-137.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. and G.L. Stuart. "Typology
of Male Batterers: Three Subtypes and the
Differences Among Them." Psychological Bulletin,
116 (3) (1994): 476-497.

Goldkamp, J.S. "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: Dade
County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment,"
Final Report. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice
Research Institute, June 1996.

Island, D. and P. Letellier. Men Who Beat the Men
Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic
Violence. New York: Harrington Park Press, n.d. 

Saunders, D. "Husbands Who Assault: Multiple
Profiles Requiring Multiple Responses." In Legal
Responses to Wife Assault, ed. N.Z. Hilton,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

Saunders, D. "A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three
Types Derived from a Cluster Analysis." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62 (2) (1992): 264-
275.

Williams, O. "Ethnically Sensitive Practice to
Enhance Treatment Participation of African
American Men Who Batter." Families in Society: The
Journal of Contemporary Human Services (1992):
588-595.

Williams, O. and R.L. Becker. "Domestic Partner
Abuse Treatment Programs and Cultural Competence:
The Results of a National Survey." Violence and
Victims, 9 (3) (1994): 287-296.

Government Publications Related to Domestic
Violence

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Domestic Violence:
Violence Between Intimates, Selected Findings.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
November 1994. (NCJ-149259)

Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden. "Threat
Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted
Violence." Research in Action Series. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice, September 1995.

Hofford, M. and A. Harrell. Family Violence:
Interventions for the Justice System, Program
Brief. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, October 1993. (NCJ-144532)

Langhan, P.A. and C.A. Innes. Preventing Domestic
Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1986.

National Institute of Justice. Domestic Violence,
Stalking, and Anti-Stalking Legislation, An Annual
Report to Congress under the Violence Against
Women Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, April 1996.

Program Evaluation

Chen, H., C. Bersani, S.C. Myers, and R. Denton.
"Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Court-Sponsored
Abuser Treatment Program." Journal of Family
Violence, 4 (1989): 309-322.

Davis, R.C. and B.G. Taylor. "Does Batterer
Treatment Reduce Violence? A Synthesis of the
Literature." Victim Services Research, New York,
NY. Unpublished Manuscript, July 1997.

Davis, R.C. and B.G. Taylor. "A Proactive Response
to Family Violence: The Results of a Randomized
Experiment." Criminology, 35 (2) (1997): 307-333.

Dobash, R., R.E. Dobash, K. Cavanagh, and R.
Lewis. "Re-Education Programs for Violent Men --
An Evaluation." Research Findings, 46 (1996): 1-4.

Dutton, D.G. "The Outcome of Court-Mandated
Treatment for Wife Assault: A Quasi-Experimental
Evaluation." Violence and Victims, 1(3) (1986):
163-175.

Edelson, J.L. and M. Syers. "Relative
Effectiveness of Group Treatments for Men Who
Batter." Social Work Research and Abstracts (June
1990): 10-17.

Gondolf, E.. "Batterer Intervention: What We Know
and What We Need to Know." Paper presented at the
Violence Against Women Strategic Planning Meeting,
sponsored by the National Institute of Justice,
Washington, DC, March31, 1995.

Gondolf, E. "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer
Intervention Systems: A Summary of Preliminary
findings." Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic Addiction
Training Institute, October 24, 1996.

Hamberger, K.L. and J.E. Hastings. "Recidivism
Following Spouse Abuse Abatement Counseling:
Treatment Program Implications." Violence and
Victims, 5 (3) (1990): 157-170.

Harrell, A. Evaluation of Court Ordered Treatment
for Domestic Violence Offenders, Final Report.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, October 1991.

Palmer, S.E., R.A. Brown, and M.E. Barrera. "Group
Treatment Program for Abusive Husbands: Long-Term
Evaluation." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
62(2) (1992): 276-283.

Saunders, D.G. "Interventions for Men Who Batter:
Do We Know What Works? In Session: Psychotherapy
in Practice, 2 (3) (1996): 81-93.

--------------------------------

Key Points

The numerous sources of additional information on
batterer interventions include:

o organizations;

o reference services;

o State agencies;

o literature; and

o individual practitioners.

--------------------------------