The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic 

Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions 

Author(s): Eleanor Lyon, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 210362 

Date Received: June 2005 

Award Number: 2000-WE-VX-0014 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: 

Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions 

Final Report 

Eleanor Lyon 

University of Connecticut 

School of Social Work 

April, 2005 

Prepared for 

National Institute of Justice 

This project was supported by Grant No.2000-WE-VX-0014 awarded to the University of Connecticut, 

School of Social Work by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table of Contents 

Project Description.........................................................................................2 

 Introduction 

Review of Relevant Literature 

Scope and Methodology..................................................................................13 

Detailed Findings..........................................................................................23 

The men in the Groups 24 

Interventions 37 

The Men’s Perspectives 38 

Group Completion 45

Recidivism 48 

An Advocacy Perspective 50 

Discussion .................................................................................................. 55 

Implications................................................................................................ 61 

Notes..........................................................................................................65 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Project Description 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Introduction 

Despite more than twenty-five years of attention to domestic violence by advocates, intervention 

program specialists, researchers, and policy-makers, and dramatic increases in resources provided 

for criminal justice and community-based services, gaps remain in our knowledge about which 

types of interventions offer the most effective strategies to hold offenders accountable and enhance 

victim safety. In particular, several years after specialized domestic violence court sessions became

more widely implemented, available knowledge remains limited about the impact of judicial

monitoring, and the expanded treatment interventions and advocacy these sessions can provide—

especially in the context of mandatory arrest that includes misdemeanor offenses. It is especially

notable that consensus remains elusive about the efficacy of intervention programs for abusive men. 

As courts across the country have moved to develop specialized approaches to respond to

the complex challenges posed by domestic violence, finding the most effective interventions for

men and support for their partners is crucial. Many group interventions developed for abusive men 

have been modeled on early approaches that were not created for court-ordered clients. Further,

many of the existing court-referred programs offer limited skill-building, often ignore appropriate

fathering, do not incorporate substance abuse issues throughout the program, and offer limited 

attention to different cultural and racial identities among group members. Models that address these 

and other limitations, with curricula that can be adopted effectively by trained facilitators, may hold 

potential for reducing repeated domestic abuse. 

In addition, when courts place more emphasis on prosecuting domestic violence defendants,

especially in misdemeanor cases, and ordering them into extended specialized programs, the roles 

played by advocates can become more complex and diverse. The project reported here evaluated 

the impact of a newly developed 26-week, 52-session skill building, culturally competent, psychoImpact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
educational curriculum-based intervention for male domestic violence offenders with female

victims (EVOLVE). EVOLVE was implemented beginning in 2000 in the context of three urban 

courts that have specialized domestic violence court sessions characterized by consistent judicial

oversight with rapid response to violations, extensive specialized victim advocacy resources, and a 

graduated range of sanctions. In particular, the evaluation sought to determine: 

• the impact of men’s participation in EVOLVE on rates of subsequent physical and emotional

abuse; 

• the impact of men’s participation in EVOLVE on their partners’ safety, safety planning, 

experience of court and well-being; 

• the rates of program completion compared to the more general 26-week program in place in 

other court sites in the state, particularly across racial and ethnic groups; and 

• how the victim advocates’ role was affected by this new resource. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Review of Relevant Literature 

Research and evaluation data on the role of the criminal legal system in responding to and 

preventing domestic violence has grown rapidly in the last fifteen years, as the number of

jurisdictions that have adopted mandatory arrest policies and established specialized interventions 

has increased dramatically. As specialized programs have proliferated, several issues have gained

importance for research and evaluation: a) the impact of group interventions for batterers, including 

promising attributes; b) more refined understanding of the characteristics of the abusive people 

(predominantly men) who are ordered to participate in them, so that programs can more efficiently 

modify their behavior; c) men’s perspectives on their own behavior and the incidents that have

brought them to legal system attention; and d) characteristics of court systems associated with

effective interventions. The literature related to each of these issues is summarized briefly in turn. 

This review demonstrates that despite the growing body of literature, substantial gaps remain in our 

knowledge about the impact of group interventions on men and their female partners. 

Impact of Group Interventions

In general, early evaluations of group interventions for abusive men produced mixed 

findings,

1

 and more recent results of the best designed and most carefully controlled studies have

not had consistent results, either. For example, Davis and Taylor’s2

 study of 376 men who had pled 

guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence and were randomly assigned to 39 hours (offered in either 

26 or eight week blocks) of batterer’s education or to 39 hours of community service found no 

difference between the eight week and control groups after six months, but the men in the 26-week 

treatment group were significantly less likely to be arrested for a new domestic violence offense or

to have police complaints filed. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In contrast, Feder and Forde’s

3

 study of 404 men on probation randomly assigned to either a 

26 week group or to probation supervision without group intervention found no statistically 

significant differences between the groups on recidivism, measured either by police records or by 

victim report. However, the study did find a small effect on recidivism among the men assigned to 

the treatment group who completed all 26 sessions. The vast majority of men in this study (85 

percent) had been sentenced following their first arrest for domestic violence, although.nearly half

had been arrested previously for other offenses. 

 A quasi-experimental design involving 339 men arrested in Seattle for domestic violence 

who were mandated into either group treatment alone (26 weekly sessions, followed by six monthly 

meetings), group treatment plus treatment for substance abuse, treatment for substance abuse or

other issues without groups for domestic violence, or were incarcerated followed the men for two 

years.

4

 Seventy-nine percent of these men had no prior convictions for domestic violence offenses, 

and 69 percent had no prior criminal history. Researchers found that the men who completed 

treatment were less significantly likely than either those who did not complete treatment or the men 

who had been incarcerated to have any official record of a new offense after two years (eight 

percent of completers, compared to 23 percent of noncompleters); differences between these groups

remained statistically significant when demographic and criminal history variables were controlled, 

although they were not large. 

Some of the most positive findings were reported from a large-scale evaluation (N = 618) of 

“model” treatment programs in four cities provided following court mandate.

5

 This study found 

that a majority of the men (59 percent) did not reassault during 30 months of follow-up. In addition, 

61 percent of the men who ultimately reassaulted did so within the first six months after program

intake. Perhaps most significantly, 64% of the men who completed at least three months of the

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
programs did not reassault, compared to just 49% of those who dropped out. This study was 

notable in many ways, including its inclusion of data from 67 percent of the men’s partners. 

These and other studies were included in a recent meta-analysis of research on batterers’ 

treatment6

 No differences were found for different treatment approaches (conceptualized as

feminist psychoeducational groups based on the Duluth model, and cognitive behavioral groups).

The authors concluded that, over all, the effects that can be attributed to treatment at this stage of

knowledge are small. In experimental studies, based on partner report, “...there is a 5% increase 

in success rate attributable to treatment....A 5% decrease in violence may appear insignificant; 

however, batterers treatment in all reported cases of domestic violence in the United States 

would equate to approximately 42,000 women per year no longer being battered.”7

 

The studies reviewed clearly involved different types and durations of treatment, different

precipitating behavior, different court contexts, different monitoring and compliance standards, and 

different personal characteristics of the men involved. These issues, of course, are also likely to 

influence group effectiveness. The men who completed groups often tended to be less likely than 

non-completers to re-offend, or to do so after more time had passed. Some researchers have

suggested that the longer treatment lasts, the more likely it is to be effective, while others have 

asserted that completion is more important than length.8

Program Completion and Dropout 

Certainly, strategies to reduce program dropout are vitally important to effective

intervention. Comparative analysis of the characteristics of program completers and dropouts has 

accompanied most evaluations of group treatment for abusive men. While some studies have 

concluded that lower age, educational attainment, unmarried status, unemployment, and selfreported alcohol use are predictors of dropout,9

 other research has found little or no relationship 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
between demographic variables and dropout.10 Studies have begun to suggest, however, that courtordered men may be more likely to remain in treatment than self-referred clients,

11 and that 

members of racial and ethnic minority groups have higher rates of dropout than Caucasians.12

High rates of dropout (40 percent to 60 percent within the first three months have been 

reported as typical)13 have spawned some efforts to improve program retention. One evaluation of 

a pregroup intervention that consisted of a one-hour presentation and discussion of a 20-minute 

dramatic video found that it was associated with lower dropout rates and higher rates of group 

participation, when compared with a control group who received the usual intake.14 Another 

evaluation of pre-group efforts to reduce dropout compared two alternatives: four weekly one-hour

sessions and a single eight-hour workshop. Men who attended the workshop had substantially 

lower dropout rates after the fourth group treatment session than did those who attended the briefer 

and more dispersed intervention.15

A more recent effort to improve group retention focused on supportive telephone calls 

immediately after missed treatment sessions, and personalized handwritten notes from facilitators to 

express concern and a desire to continue working with the individual. Just 15 percent of the men 

who received immediate supportive communications ultimately dropped out of the treatment group, 

compared to 30 percent of those who received no contact. Further, the contrast was more dramatic

among racial and ethnic minority clients: 10 percent of these men dropped out of the group with 

supportive contact, compared to 42 percent who dropped out of the comparison group. 

The findings on dropout, then, are somewhat mixed. They appear to point to a combination 

of factors associated with attrition, including client characteristics, potential consequences of 

dropout (court-ordered men have lower rates), and features of communication between group 

leaders and participants. It seems that fairly minimal but systematic effort can reduce dropout, and 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
that different strategies may be particularly helpful for men from racial and ethnic minority groups. 

Certainly, many national experts on interventions for abusive men who specialize in communities of

color have argued that different, more culturally appropriate and sensitive, intervention models will

contribute to lower dropout rates and more positive outcomes than the group models that are 

currently common.16 

Batterer Typologies 

 The attempt to understand the dynamics of domestic violence, and ultimately to develop 

appropriate interventions that will effectively reduce or eliminate abusive behavior, has also led 

some researchers to investigate batterer typologies. Several alternative conceptualizations have

been offered over the years,17 with some more behaviorally-focused, and others based on 

psychological or neurobiological characteristics. 

 Some of the most recent typological refinements and their efficacy were presented and 

discussed as part of a special issue on a national research agenda.18 Holtzworth-Munroe and 

Meehan19 offered empirical support for their four-type formulation: 1) FO (family-only batterers), 

2) DB (dysphoric or borderline), 3) GVCA (generally violent and antisocial), and 4) LLA (low-level

antisocial). They maintained that each of these types show different patterns (regarding change or

stability in frequency and severity of abuse) over time, and argued for more consideration of 

situational and contextual data in future empirical work. Saunders20 raised definitional and 

methodological concerns, and urged more attention to community, subcultural and societal level 

variables. Prentky,21 applying his work on sex offenders, suggested that focusing on a differentiated 

conceptualization of anger (acute or chronic) could be fruitful in developing more refined 

approaches to interventions with domestically abusive men. Although substantial work has been 

done in this area, researchers and practitioners are clearly still far from consensus about batterer 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
typologies, definitional issues, and the types of variables that should be considered in creating them. 

In addition, typologies have generally not been a focus of evaluations of group interventions for 

abusive men, or informed court-ordered group referrals. There is growing agreement, however, that 

a “one-size-fits-all” approach to intervention is unlikely to be effective, and some evaluations have

included analyses that could contribute to typological formulations.

22 

Abusive Men’s Perspectives

 Efforts to modify the behavior of abusive men, as with any attempt at behavioral change, are 

likely to be most productive if their own understandings are taken into account. As Buchbinder and 

Eisikovits23 noted recently, however, the literature on men’s perspectives is extremely limited. 

They maintained that “effective clinical and institutional interventions with batterers need to take 

into account their perspectives, their perceptions, their range of choices, and limitations on choice as 

experienced by them.”24

 Despite the scanty literature, the analysis that exists can be useful for thinking about 

interventions. Most researchers have categorized men’s perspectives as excuses, justifications, 

or neutralizing techniques.25 Buchbinder and Eisikovits provided data from interviews with 20 

men who had been arrested multiple times, and found that their perspective changed over time. 

By the third encounter with police, the men expected the worst, felt increasing anger and despair, 

and a sense of entrapment in a situation where they could not win.26 Conceivably, such anger 

and despair could contribute to men’s renewed efforts to change their behavior. It seems more 

likely, however, that increased anger and feelings of entrapment could lead men to feel that “the 

system” is biased against them, and changes on their part would not make much difference. 

While these finding are still only suggestive, they offer potentially useful information related to 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
challenges faced in interventions with abusive men who have had multiple encounters with the 

criminal legal system. 

Court System Issues 

Increasingly, the importance of multi-institutional, coordinated community responses in the 

court context has been emphasized and received some support.

27 As part of coordinated court 

responses, research has begun to demonstrate that advocacy services can provide significant 

support of diverse kinds and can be associated with reduced risk of physical and psychological 

abuse over time.

28 Unfortunately, studies of advocacy in the court context have been extremely 

limited until recently.29 As more emphasis is placed on court responses as the central feature of 

comprehensive interventions, expanded and effective advocacy has been urged more strongly, 

and models have proliferated.30 

Early evaluations of comprehensive, coordinated court responses have indicated that such

programs can be effective; they have been increasingly advocated as practitioners have 

acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved in domestic violence for both offenders and 

victims. Buzawa, Hotaling and Klein found that the model court they studied focused intervention 

resources on men who had prior arrests for domestic violence. Murphy, Musser and Maton found 

that the more coordinated intervention the court invoked, the lower were men’s subsequent rates of 

recidivism. Additional investigations of comprehensive intervention approaches, including judicial

monitoring, as in the Judicial Oversight Demonstration initiative, are currently under way,31 and are 

clearly needed. 

All of these issues provide the context for the present report on an evaluation of a newly 

developed model for court-ordered intervention with abusive men, although they were not all 

explicitly incorporated into the original design. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

Scope and Methodology 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This project focused on an evaluation of EVOLVE, a newly developed broad based, skill

building, culturally competent psychoeducational curriculum for male domestic violence offenders

with female victims. Most programs that are 26 weeks or longer are educational programs based on 

the Duluth model. They meet once a week and feature didactic material and dialog. In contrast, the 

EVOLVE program meets twice weekly for 26 weeks, and includes one session each week that

emphasizes didactic material and dialog, and one that focuses on explicit practice and skill-building. 

Also unlike most other programs, it is explicitly culturally heterogeneous, addresses issues of 

fathering and the impact of violence on children, integrates substance abuse education throughout

the program, and includes a multi-session section on sexuality and sexual violence. It is drawn from

the experience of recognized facilitators from diverse backgrounds, one of whom provided training 

and regular supervision through the first year of program implementation (which overlapped with

the beginning of this evaluation). 

 The 26-week, 52-session curriculum was implemented in three large urban courts that have

specialized domestic violence court sessions, judicial monitoring, specialized court staff throughout 

the judicial process, enhanced advocacy for victims, a collaborative team approach to case

processing, and collaboration with networks of involved community service providers. The

comparison site, also a large urban court, had some specialized court staff and enhanced victim

advocacy, as well. It was selected as the comparison because of these court features, the use of a 

more traditional 26-week intervention (that met just once each week), its high volume, and the high 

rate of involvement of men of color, which was similar to rates found at the EVOLVE sites at the 

time the evaluation was proposed. 

EVOLVE was designed to be used with men who had been arrested for domestic violence at 

least once before, or who had been charged with felonious assault. EVOLVE was intended as a 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
final community-based alternative to incarceration. Men were either convicted of their domestic 

violence offense and ordered to attend the program as a condition of probation, or had entered 

“guilty” pleas that would be invoked if they did not complete the program. This group could 

potentially have their charges dismissed or reduced if they completed the program successfully. It

was anticipated that the men who had been arrested for domestic violence in the past would have 

typically participated in the 10-week group intervention program offered in all courts in the state on

a pre-trial basis. The same assumptions applied to use of the program (called “Explore”) at the

comparison site, as well. 

The projected samples. The evaluation design called for interviewing 440 men who entered the 

EVOLVE program and 175 men from the comparison court site who started Evolve over an 18-

month period, and collecting self-report data on new incidents of physical and emotional abuse for a

minimum of 15 months following program intake.

32 Data were to be collected at intake and at 

three, six, and 12 months after intake. Information was also to be obtained from police records for 

criminal history, and data on new arrests with conviction were to be collected through a minimum 

of 15 months post-intake. 

The design also called for interviews with as many of the men’s victim partners as possible. 

All of the victims who had contact with the specialized advocates were to be told about the 

evaluation and asked for their consent to be contacted by researchers. Contact with victims through 

the advocates had worked very effectively in past projects,

33 and the process was consistent with

increased judicial and university emphasis on victim safety and informed consent.

The measures. The initial interviews with the men included the most extensive set of measures. 

They consisted, first, of a background questionnaire that covered demographics, family status, 

parents’ behavior (drug or alcohol problems, physical abuse of each other or respondent, 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
employment status or crime problems), and their hopes or plans for their relationship with the

victim. The Michigan Alcohol Screening Test34 was also administered. This test consists of 25 

weighted items about drinking-related behavior and problems, and has been widely used with

success in other evaluations of batterer treatment programs. It is designed to uncover potential 

problem drinking despite drinkers’ tendency to minimize or deny it. The men were also asked to

complete the 175-item Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Although this test is lengthy, it is

briefer than many alternatives. It also contains sub-scales that correlate highly with DSM-IV 

categories. It, too, has been widely used in evaluations of batterers’ treatment programs.35

The men’s interview also included the physical assault and sexual coercion scales of the 

revised Conflict Tactics Scale.36 They were supplemented with a version of the 21-item Profile of 

Psychological Abuse,

37 modified to report the program participant’s own behavior (for example, 

“how often do you...become angry or upset if your partner wants to be with someone else and not 

with you?”). The Profile consists of behavioral statements scored on seven frequency options, 

ranging from “never” to “daily.” It generates five sub-scales: Jealous Control, Ignore, Ridicule

Traits, Criticize Behavior, and Fear of Abuse. Finally, the men were asked about their partners’ 

responses, and their sense of their partners’ fear (also derived from the Profile of Psychological 

Abuse). In addition, data on the men’s criminal histories were obtained (number, type, and severity

of prior criminal convictions; number and severity of prior family violence convictions; timing of 

first arrest and first family violence arrest). 

Subsequent interviews with the men at 3, 6, and 12 months after intake asked primarily 

about abuse during the interim, their partners’ responses, their partners’ fear, any changes in 

employment or family status, and their hopes or plans for their relationship. These data were

supplemented with data on subsequent convictions (general and family violence), and sentences to

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
periods of incarceration. In addition, data were obtained from the group facilitators about 

attendance, their rating of each individual’s program participation after each session (in a single

categorical rating developed collaboratively with the facilitators, consisting of did not attend, 

present but not engaged, or present and engaged), and status at termination (successful completion, 

negative discharge before completion). 

The samples achieved. Intake interviews were ultimately completed with a total of 544 men who 

attended at least one session of the group to which they were referred: 420 in the EVOLVE sites, 

and 124 in the Explore site. The projected sample size was not quite achieved for several reasons, 

some of which varied from one site to another. First, soon after the project got under way, state 

budgetary difficulties led to reductions in contracts with community-based group services providers. 

The reductions led to a slower pace of intakes at the program sites, and closed intake entirely for

short periods of time. Although program capacity was restored in the following fiscal year, fiscal

problems halted intake for another period during another point in the evaluation. Still, evaluators

hoped that the projected target sample size might be met.

Second, program site accommodations were less than ideal. When these were combined

with stringent informed consent requirements mandated by the programs and supported by the

university’s IRB process, enrolling evaluation participants became more difficult. In the sites where 

the programs had private offices for group facilitators at the location where group meetings were 

held, study participation proceeded easily, with very minimal refusal. At another site, however, 

initial interviews had to be conducted at the time of the initial screening interview. That interview 

took between one and two hours, as did the initial research interview. Some men were unable to 

commit that large a block of time because of work or family constraints, and others were unwilling 

to do so. At still another site, individual clinical intake interviews were held in one location where 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
there was no private space to conduct a research interview. In that site, initially, facilitators told the 

men about the evaluation during a group orientation session. Those who agreed to participate were 

allowed to leave that session to complete the evaluation interview. However, this process meant 

that group participants knew who was taking part in the study and who was not. There were

occasions where the group dynamic was such that no one agreed to participate. When expanded

office space made it possible to conduct interviews at the time of the clinical appointment, study 

enrollment increased substantially. Offering financial incentives also increased participation. 

Nonetheless, the early process consumed valuable time and other resources, since three of the study 

sites were at some distance from the research offices. It also extended the time during which men 

were enrolled in the study, so that the last men to be added had less than nine months elapse before

the final collection of recidivism data. 

Finally, the study was designed for men who were referred to and started one of the two 

programs involved. Since the first interviews were supposed to be conducted before the group 

intervention actually began, and were therefore completed at the time of the clinical screening 

interview or during one of the orientation sessions (when rules and expectations were presented and 

program information was collected at some sites), some of the men who were interviewed were

either returned to court as inappropriate for the group (due to insufficient literacy, severe pathology, 

or other issues incompatible with participation in a group format that included “homework” 

assignments) or never appeared for their first group session. Although initial interviews were 

completed, these men (over 50 of them) were not retained in the evaluation. This decision marks a 

departure from many other evaluations, which include such men in their “non-completers”

comparisons. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Space issues and logistical constraints also made follow-up interviews more difficult to 

complete. Group facilitators were unable to release men from much of their scheduled time in the 

group session, so men had to come early or stay late to complete the interviews in person. Again 

some men were unable, and others were unwilling to do this. Interviews were also conducted by 

telephone when possible, but despite the study process of reviewing consent and contact

information for the next interview at the conclusion of each one, and efforts to update contact

information through probation officers, high rates of mobility, widespread use of cellular phones 

that changed frequently, and caller-ID, added to incarceration, reduced success in follow-up 

interviews. Other researchers have acknowledged the difficulty of conducting longitudinal research 

with this population, and have noted that the problems have increased dramatically and rapidly over 

the past few years, as is true with (especially telephone) research with other populations, as well. 

As experienced researchers from a highly regarded longitudinal study observed recently, “The

public’s reactions to identification, call block, call intercept, unlisted cell phones, and answering 

machines have made tracking increasingly difficult. The logistics and funds required to conduct 

such longitudinal follow-up have, consequently, become harder to anticipate.”38

The challenges involved in interviewing the men’s victims, in turn, proved insurmountable. 

Although the study’s researchers had substantial experience and success working with the 

specialized advocates to contact and interview victims in past studies, initial contacts had been with 

victims at the time of arraignment, and interviews had most commonly been conducted before the

court case was finally disposed (i.e. when advocates were still in regular contact with them). Past 

experience, however, could not guide efforts for the present effort. Just before this study began, a 

victim homicide following court intervention led to new state-wide policies being adopted regarding 

victim contact, in an effort to enhance victim safety. As a result, the contact protocol became much 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
more elaborate and cumbersome than was true in the past. The agreement adopted with the 

advocates required that they contact the victim, send her a study description and explanation of 

procedures and incentives, and a release of information form through the mail (since by the time the 

men were referred to EVOLVE or Explore the women had primarily telephone contact with 

advocates, if any at all). The victim then had to sign the release of information form, provide 

contact information, and send it back to the advocate. The advocate then sent any agreement forms 

to the central advocate coordinator, who in turn forwarded them along to researchers. This

cumbersome process, not surprisingly, led to just 20 agreements to participate. By the time 

researchers received the forms and contacted the women, some had changed their minds, and others

had moved (phone not in service); in some cases the signed forms did not include the contact

information. As a result, just five interviews were completed with women partners in the first year 

and a half of the study. After that, since a new contact protocol was not possible, efforts to include

the partners were abandoned. This inability to include systematic information from the victims was 

a dramatic departure from past experience, and is the most serious disappointment and limitation of 

this evaluation. 

Interviews conducted with all seven of the advocates who specialized in post-conviction 

work with domestic violence victims revealed that they initially shared the researchers’ surprise at 

the lack of victim participation. These were precisely the women the advocates had worked with

most repeatedly (because of past court cases), and with whom they had often established some

rapport and trust. After more than a year of program implementation, however, the advocates had a 

different understanding of the victims’ perspectives regarding the EVOLVE/ Explore group 

experience for their current or (now) former abusive partners. The consensus revealed in the 

interviews highlighted the following: 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• The advocates themselves had much more limited contact with these victims. Their

estimates of the percentage of victims they have been able to have direct contact with ranged 

from 10 to 15 percent on one end to “about half or less” on the other. This range was 

substantially lower than the 80 percent or more of victims that advocates typically contact in 

person or by telephone around the time of arraignment. “Stale information” is one of the 

advocates’ biggest challenges in trying to work with victims at this later stage of the court 

process. If they cannot reach victims, they cannot help researchers to do so. 

• The minority of victims with whom the advocates do have contact are more likely than 

others to still be involved in a relationship with their abusive partner. Because of past cases 

and disappointments (among other reasons), the other victims had disengaged, and were no 

longer involved with the men in these programs. The women still involved were more 

likely than the others to be very fearful (a small proportion), or highly invested in the

program working, or angry at the court system—primarily because they consider the 

program intrusive. (More information from these interviews is provided in a later section of 

this report.) In all of these scenarios, the women are unlikely to want to talk with 

researchers described by advocates, and have an uncertain relationship with the court system

(even though all materials they are given stress the evaluation’s independence from the court

and the confidentiality of all information shared during interviews). Some advocates 

suggested that incentive payments substantially larger than the $20 offered for the first

interview might have enhanced participation. 

In short, interviews with the advocates suggest that the men’s female victims could not be

included in this study for reasons that were not anticipated by researchers or advocates before the 

evaluation began. New state policies introduced legal constraints. A cumbersome contact protocol

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
made logistics unwieldy. The minority of victims with whom the advocates had meaningful contact 

were loathe to talk with researchers because of their connections with their abusive partners or their

perceptions of the court system and its possible consequences—they were taking no chances. 

Clearly, different strategies and/or substantially higher incentives would be needed to overcome this

highly unfortunate limitation. 

Data analysis. The analysis for the results that follow in the next section includes both quantitative 

approaches and qualitative summaries of some of the major open-ended items on the men’s 

interviews and major issues raised by advocates in their interviews. The quantitative analyses focus 

on descriptions of the men, comparisons of men in the EVOLVE and Explore programs, analysis of 

differences in completion rates, and analysis of differences in recidivism.

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

Detailed Findings

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The results that follow are divided into five sections: a comparative description of the 

men who participated in the EVOLVE or Explore group interventions; a related analysis of 

men’s responses to several open-ended items in the initial interview; a comparative and 

multivariate analysis of group completion; a comparative and multivariate analysis of post-intake 

recidivism; and a summary of implementation issues raised in interviews conducted with all of 

the advocates who work with the victims of men in the groups. 

The Men in the Groups

Demographic characteristics. The major demographic characteristics of the men in EVOLVE 

and the comparison group are shown in Exhibit 1. In most instances, apparent differences 

Exhibit 1: Demographic Characteristics of Group Participants by Type of Group

(in percent) 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Age: 18 – 20 

 21 – 25 

 26 – 30 

 31 – 35 

 36 – 40 

 41 – 50 

 > 50 

 4.8 

22.4 

14.8 

19.5 

15.0 

20.7 

 2.9 

 3.2 

18.5 

21.8 

24.2 

13.7 

16.9 

 1.6 

 4.4 

21.5 

16.4 

20.6 

14.7 

19.9 

 2.6 

Race/Ethnicity: African American

 Caucasian 

 Latino/Hispanic 

 Other 

47.6 

23.1 

26.7 

 2.7 

44.4 

10.5 

44.4 

 0.8 

 46.8 *** 

20.1 

30.8 

 2.2 

Education: < high school 

 9 – 11 years 

 high school grad/GED 

 some college 

 college grad 

 5.9 

27.1 

45.1 

17.3 

 4.5 

 6.5 

37.9 

42.7 

 8.9 

 4.0 

 6.1 

29.5 

44.6 

15.4 

 4.4 

# children: none 

 one 

 two 

 three – five 

 six - eight 

23.4 

24.6 

25.1 

25.3 

 1.7 

16.4 

21.3 

24.6 

30.3 

 7.4 

 21.8 ** 

23.8 

25.0 

26.4 

 3.0 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

# children living None 

with participant One

during incident: Two 

 Three or more 

35.9 

22.3 

14.3 

27.6 

37.9 

23.4 

18.5 

20.2 

36.3 

22.6 

15.2 

25.9 

Relationship Married, together 

Status: Not married, together 

 Relationship, but not 

living together 

 “Broken up” 

 Divorced 

 Other 

18.3 

49.2 

14.7 

 10.0 

 1.2 

 6.6 

16.9 

56.5 

9.7 

8.9 

0.8 

7.3 

18.0 

50.8 

13.6 

9.7 

1.1 

6.8 

Years in Less than one 

Relationship: One – two 

 Three – five 

 Six – ten 

 Eleven or more

 6.2 

25.0 

28.1 

22.6 

18.1 

 3.2 

19.4 

31.5 

31.5 

14.5 

 5.5 

23.7 

28.9 

24.6 

17.3 

Have job?: Yes 55.1 57.3 55.6 

Financial Own job

Support:: Partner’s job 

 Unemployment 

 TFA/public assistance 

 Food stamps 

 Social Security 

 SSDI 

 Parents 

 55.3 

5.7 

7.8 

1.4 

6.7 

1.7 

2.6 

9.5 

57.3 

12.1 

7.3 

2.4 

9.7 

3.2 

3.2 

11.3 

 55.8 

 7.2 * 

7.7 

1.7 

7.3 

2.0 

2.8 

9.9 

Primary language English: (yes) 82.1 79.0 81.4 

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

between the two groups are not significant statistically. These men are not as young as abusive 

men in court settings often are: 57.7 percent are age 30 or older. This is compatible with the fact 

that they have generally been to court for domestic violence incidents in the past. Relative to the 

men in the comparison site, the men in EVOLVE are somewhat more likely to have completed 

high school (67.1 percent vs. 55.6 percent, although this difference is not quite significant 

statistically). The vast majority of the men in both groups are fathers, although only about twothirds of the men in EVOLVE had children living with them at the time of the incident. Over 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
two-thirds were living with their partner at the time of the incident, although most were not 

legally married; and about one in ten were either “broken up” (separated) or divorced from their 

partner. Notably, most of the men had been involved in a long-term relationship with their 

partner: 41 percent of the men in EVOLVE, and 46 percent of the men in Explore, had been in 

the relationship for six years or longer. Over half of the men in both groups were employed, and 

many had other sources of financial support (including their partner or their parents, for some), 

as well. Finally, English was the primary language spoken by about four out of five. (All 

materials were translated into Spanish, the major other language spoken, and interviews were 

conducted in Spanish with those for whom English was difficult.) 

As Exhibit 1 shows, there were significant differences between the two groups on three 

variables: race/ethnicity, the number of children, and the percentage obtaining financial support 

from their partner’s job. The men in EVOLVE were more likely to report they had no children 

(although they were equivalently likely to have children living with them at the time of the 

incident), and less likely to report that they received financial help from their partner’s job. The 

most important of the differences, however, is in race/ethnicity: men in EVOLVE were more 

likely to be Caucasian, and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic than those in the comparison site.39

Childhood caretakers. Exhibit 2 provides information about the group participants’ primary 

Exhibit 2: Childhood Caretaker Characteristics by Type of Group

(in percent) 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Primary Mother & father 

Caretaker(s) Mother & boyfriend 

In Childhood Mother only 

 Father only 

 Relatives 

 Other 

54.3 

 5.0 

26.4 

 2.1 

 8.8 

 3.4 

44.4 

 6.5 

33.1 

 2.4 

 8.1 

 5.5 

52.0 

 5.3 

27.9 

 2.2 

 8.6 

 4.0 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Male caretaker employed Yes 62.7 56.4 61.3 

Female caretaker employed Yes 68.3 63.7 67.2 * 

Male caretaker alcohol problems Yes 19.3 20.2 19.5

Female caretaker alcohol problems Yes 6.9 5.6 6.6

Male caretaker drug problems Yes 4.3 3.2 4.0

Female caretaker drug problems Yes 1.9 3.2 2.2

* p < .05 Note: percentages related to individual caretakers are based on all men, to reflect their living

circumstances, and not only on those who had a caretaker of a particular gender. 

caretakers during childhood. Over half of the men in EVOLVE (54.3 percent, compared to 44.4 

percent of the men in the comparison group; this apparent difference is not quite significant 

statistically) were raised primarily by their biological parents together. Men in the EVOLVE 

program were somewhat more likely to have been raised by male and/or female caretakers who 

were employed, although the primary difference among female caretakers was that those 

associated with the men in EVOLVE were more likely to have been employed part-time. With 

regard to drug or alcohol problems, nearly one in five were raised with male caretakers who had 

alcohol problems; rates of alcohol problems among female caretakers and of drug problems for 

caretakers of either gender (as reported by the men in the interviews) were substantially lower, 

and do not differ by type of group. 

Childhood exposure to violence and abuse. Data about group participants’ exposure to violence 

and abuse in childhood is shown in Exhibit 3 (on the next page). The men in EVOLVE were 

significantly less likely than the men in the comparison group to have been aware of fighting and 

domestic violence between the people who took care of them while they were growing up, but 

these experiences were reported by less than half of the men in either group. Notably, however, 

there were no differences in rates of caretaker arrest, either in general or for a domestic violenceImpact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit 3: Violence and Abuse in Childhood by Type of Group

(In percent) 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Saw or heard fighting between 

caretakers while growing up Yes 32.9 46.9 36.0 * 

DV between caretakers Yes 25.7 40.3 29.0 ** 

Either caretaker ever arrested? Yes 14.4 15.4 14.7 

Male caretaker DV arrest? Yes 6.2 4.0 5.7 

Female caretaker DV arrest? Yes 1.2 2.4 1.5 

Hurt in fights they witnessed? Yes 5.7 2.4 5.0 ** 

Physically hurt growing up? Yes 15.7 18.5 16.4 

Hurt sexually growing up? Yes 2.6 4.0 2.9 

* p < .05 ** p < .01 

related incident. The men in the EVOLVE program were more likely than those in the 

comparison group to have been hurt in the course of the fights they witnessed in childhood, 

although the percentages are low for both groups. Finally, about one in six of the men reported 

having been hurt physically by a family member while they were growing up, and a very small 

percentage admitted they had been hurt sexually by a family member. There is no difference 

between the groups in the reported experience of abuse during childhood. 

Alcohol and drug experience. Data on participants’ alcohol and drug experience is shown in 

Exhibit 4 (on the next page). Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST) scores are derived from

weighting responses to 25 questions with yes/no answers, and then summing them to produce a 

composite score. The scores produce the categories shows in the Exhibit. More than half of the 

men in both groups score in the problem or potential problem range. Notably, however, 

substantial proportions of the men with scores indicating problems or potential problems 

consider themselves to be “normal” drinkers. (Of course, “normal” was not defined for them; it 

is a reflection of their own self-labeling.) Men in the EVOLVE group are less likely than the 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit 4: Alcohol and Drug Experience by Type of Group 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

MAST score: Low risk 

 High risk 

 Alcoholism

46.3 

21.4 

32.3 

42.7 

31.5 

25.8 

45.5 

23.7 

30.8 

Consider self a “normal” drinker? yes 35.9 44.0 37.9 * 

Have tried “street” drugs yes 78.0 81.5 78.9 

* p < .05 

others to consider themselves normal drinkers, although they are somewhat more likely to be 

categorized on the MAST as low risk. 

Psychological ratings. Clinical scores compatible with DSM-IV categories were obtained from

the 175-item Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. In general, the men did not score in the 

“pathological” range in great numbers. Scores indicative of pathology ranged from none on the 

compulsive scale to 23 percent on the anxiety scale. The other scales that had 10 percent or 

more of the men scoring in the pathological range were the narcicissm scale (16.5 percent) the 

depression scale (16.1 percent), the paranoid scale (11.7 percent), and the alcohol dependence 

scale (10.7 percent). Anxiety was notable for its elevated scores: 17.6 percent of the men scored 

in the pathological range, and an additional 26.7 percent had scores that indicated the presence of 

clinical symptomatology. The scales with the next highest combined scores suggesting 

pathology or clinical symptomatology were avoidance, at 31.1 percent and depression, at 29.7 

percent.. 

The two groups were quite similar in their clinical scores, as well. Only four showed 

differences that reached statistical significance. These were the depression scale (18.2 percent of 

the comparison group had scores in the pathological range, compared to 9.9 percent of the men 

in EVOLVE); the major depression scale (7.3 percent of the men in the comparison group had 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
combined scores indicating pathology or clinical symptoms, compared to3.3 percent of the men 

in EVOLVE); the avoidance scale (40.9 percent of the men in the comparison group had 

combined scores suggesting pathology or clinical symptoms, compared to 31.2 percent of the 

men in EVOLVE), and the antisocial scale (8.8 percent of the men in EVOLVE had scores in the 

pathological range, compared to 3.3 percent of the men in the comparison group). 

Analyses of MCMI-III scores were conducted after the scores of men who scored in the 

“invalid” range on the measure of “disclosure patterns.”40 Over all, 12.9% of the scores were 

removed from analysis for this reason: 14.1 percent of scores for the men in the EVOLVE 

program, and 8.9% of those in the comparison group. 

In sum, the majority of the men fell well within the “normal” range on the majority of the 

clinical scales, and the two groups did not differ appreciably from each other. In fact, less than 5 

percent scored within the range indicating pathology on several scales: histrionic, sadistic, 

compulsive, somatoform, bipolar-manic, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, thought disorder, and 

major depression. However, the men in EVOLVE had more troubling scores on the major 

depression and antisocial scales, while the men in the comparison group had more troubling 

scores on the depression and avoidance scales. 

Past use of physical or sexual violence or abuse. Participants’ use of physical or sexual 

violence or injury with the same partner before the incident that led the court to refer him to the 

group was measured by responses to the items in the physical and sexual coercion and injury 

subscales of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Summary scores were calculated by simply 

adding the number associated with the frequency category (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = 2-5 times, 

3 = 6 or more times) which the participant used to indicate how often he had used the particular 

“tactic” in the relationship prior to the arrest incident. Exhibit 5 shows the mean scores by group 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit 5: Means of Past Physical, Sexual and Injury Scales by Type of Group 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Minor physical assault 2.66 2.59 

Severe physical assault 0.66 0.99 

Minor sexual coercion 0.21 0.13 

Severe sexual coercion 0.07 0.03 

Minor injury 0.29 0.27 

Severe injury 0.06 0.08 

 

for each of the subscales. For most items, the participants in EVOLVE admitted to using slightly

more of the listed tactics, and more frequently. The comparison group admitted to slightly 

higher rates of severe physical assault and injury. However, none of these apparent differences 

were significant statistically. 

Exhibit 6 shows the percentage of participants in each group who admitted using the 

Exhibit 6: Comparative Use of Particular Tactics in the Past by Type of Group 

(In percent) 

 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Grabbed her 46.6 47.1 46.7 

Pushed or shoved her 47.6 42.5 46.5 

Slapped her 30.8 29.1 30.5 

She felt physical pain the next day 18.3 17.8 18.5 

Twisted her arm or hair 14.9 17.9 15.6 

Threw something at her that could hurt 11.5 10.8 11.4 

Punched or hit her with something that could hurt 7.9 15.7 9.7 

Slammed her against a wall 8.6 10.8 9.1 

Beat her up 9.4 8.3 9.1 

Choked her 8.6 9.1 8.9 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
indicated tactics at least once before the arrest incident. Only the most commonly used tactics 

are displayed in the exhibit, in descending order of frequency. Nearly half of the men in both 

groups admitted grabbing and pushing or shoving their partners in the past; just under a third 

acknowledged they had slapped their partners. Less than ten percent of either group admitted to 

having “beat up” their partners before the incident that led to their current arrest. 

Similar types of information were collected and recorded at the sites during their intake 

process, although the questions and responses were not systematically recorded, the information 

was not precise, and the sites were not consistent. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that, in the 

comparison site, intake assessments found violence at substantially higher rates than were 

indicated in the interviews with researchers. For example, “escalation of domestic violence” was 

recorded for 41.9 percent, “Physical violence in the relationship” was recorded for 87.6 percent, 

“intimidation or property violence” was indicated for 57.7 percent, and 57.3 percent “sees 

himself as the victim.” Although these figures have unknown validity and reliability, the 

responses in the research interviews must also be regarded as undercounts. 

Past use of psychological abuse. Psychological abuse was measured by the 21-item Profile of 

Psychological Abuse. Analysis of mean scores on each of the sub-scales (Jealous Control, 

Ignore, Ridicule Traits, Criticize Behavior, and Fear of Abuse) showed virtually no differences 

between groups in the admitted use of the types of psychological or emotional abuse measured. 

Exhibit 7 (on the next page) shows the percentage of participants who acknowledged using the 

specific behavior, or inducing fear at least once during the relationship. Again, only the most 

commonly used behaviors are displayed in the exhibit, in descending order of frequency. The 

exhibit shows that the most common form of psychological/emotional abuse acknowledged by 

the men in both groups was “Suggest she’s crazy or stupid;” over half of the men in both groups 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
admitted doing this at least once, and 13.8 percent of the men in EVOLVE and 17.1 percent of 

the men in the comparison group indicated they did this at least once a week. None of the 

Exhibit 7: Comparative Use of Psychological Abuse in the Past by Type of Group 

(In percent) 

 

Characteristic EVOLVE

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544)

Suggest she is crazy or stupid 50.4 51.2 50.6 

Ignore her when she begins a conversation 41.4 31.7 39.2 

She tries to second-guess how I will act 40.2 35.8 39.2 

She worries that what she does will make me angry 37.3 39.3 37.8 

Make TV, magazine, the newspaper, or other people seem

more important than she is 

31.5 31.7 31.6

Call her names with sexual connotations such as “slut” or 

“whore” or “cunt” 

28.2 28.5 28.2

Become angry or upset if she wants to be with someone 

else and not with me

26.6 21.1 25.3

Intercept her mail, telephone calls, or drill her about who 

called her, who wrote a letter, or what she was talking 

about 

25.4 22.0 24.8

Keep her up late yelling at her, accusing her of having 

affairs or accusing her of other things 

23.5 17.9 22.2

Ignore her suggestion to have sex or not do what excites 

or satisfies her 

20.6 20.3 20.5

apparent differences between groups are significant statistically. The men were most likely to 

admit to items included in the “ignore” sub-scale, followed by, in order, “ridicule traits,” “fear of 

abuse,” “jealous control,” and (a distant last) “criticize behavior.” In addition to “calling her 

crazy or stupid,” men admitted that they ignored her when she began a conversation, and that 

their partners tried to second-guess how they would act with greatest frequency. 15.1 percent of 

the men in EVOLVE estimated that they ignored their partners at least once a week (compared to 

16.3 percent of the others), and 18.2 percent indicated their partners tried to second-guess at least 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
once a week (compared to 15.4 percent of the men in the comparison group). The only difference 

on a specific item that reached significance statistically at the nominal level (ever happen/never

happen) was “I make her feel as if she is ‘walking on eggshells’ when I am around her.” Sixteen 

percent of the men in EVOLVE indicated this had occurred at least once, compared to 8.9 

percent of the men in the comparison group. In general, the set of behaviors shown in the exhibit, 

acknowledged by at least one out of five of these men, adds importantly to the picture of the 

abusive patterns they have used. 

Criminal history. Information about group participants’ prior criminal history is shown in 

Exhibit 8. These data were obtained from the state’s criminal history information system 

Exhibit 8: Criminal History by Type of Program

(In percent) 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

# of Prior None 

Convictions One 

 Two 

 Three – five 

 Six – ten 

 More than ten 

12.7 

9.6 

14.9 

32.5 

20.0 

10.3 

6.5 

11.3 

14.5 

33.9 

18.6 

15.3 

11.3 

10.0 

14.8 

32.8 

19.6 

11.5 

Age at First Under 18 

Arrest 18 – 20 

 21 – 25 

 26 – 30 

 Over 30

15.5 

21.9 

24.3 

12.1 

26.2 

14.6 

21.1 

24.4 

13.8 

26.0 

15.3 

21.7 

24.3 

12.1 

26.2 

# of Prior DV None 

Convictions One 

 Two 

 Three – five 

 Six – ten 

28.0 

34.4 

22.4 

13.7 

 1.5 

15.6 

45.1 

22.1 

16.4 

 0.8 

 25.2 * 

36.8 

22.4 

14.3 

 1.3 

* p < .05 

maintained by the state police. This system provides information about arrests in the state that 

led to convictions. Therefore the arrest frequencies in the Exhibit do not include those that did 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
not lead to a formal conviction, or those that were dismissed as part of “bargaining” when there 

were convictions on the same date related to charges in other arrests. In short, these are very 

conservative measures of past criminal activity. As the Exhibit shows, even by this conservative 

measure, most of the men in these groups had extensive criminal records—only about one in ten 

had no previous convictions. Although the men in the EVOLVE group appear to have somewhat 

shorter records, and are about twice as likely as the men at the comparison site to have no 

recorded prior convictions, the differences are not significant statistically. Exhibit 7 also shows 

that there is essentially no difference between the groups in the age at which the men were first 

arrested for a crime for which they were convicted. Nearly four in ten experienced their first 

such arrest before the age of 20. 

The history of convictions for family violence is even more telling. First arrests on 

misdemeanor family violence charges are commonly nolled (prosecution is suspended for 13 

months; if no further criminal activity occurs, the charges are dismissed) in this state if a 

defendant is ordered to attend the 10-week group program and he/she is reported to have 

completed it successfully. These cases, then, are not included in these figures. Again, the men 

in the EVOLVE program have somewhat fewer family violence convictions, but the differences, 

while significant statistically, are not substantial. 

Physical or sexual violence and injury in the arrest incident. Participants’ use of physical or 

sexual violence, and injury experienced by their victim, were measured with the same Conflict 

Tactics Scale items as those used to describe past abuse with the same victim reported earlier. 

The men were asked to say whether or not they had used each tactic in the incident that led to 

their arrest. Exhibit 9 shows the average scores for each scale, where each tactic was given a 

score of 1 if they had used the particular behavior. The differences in means are statistically 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Exhibit 9: Means of Physical, Sexual and Injury Scales Scores for Arrest Incident 

by Type of Group 

Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 423) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Minor physical assault 1.22 1.66 ** 

Severe physical assault 0.39 0.52 * 

Minor sexual coercion 0.01 0.04 

Severe sexual coercion 0.02 0.03 

Minor injury 0.20 0.29 * 

Severe injury 0.15 0.18 

* p < .05 ** p < .01 

significant for three of the six subscales. Notably, the behavioral means for the men in EVOLVE 

are consistently lower than those for the men in the comparison group, and this is reflected in a 

lower mean for minor injury, as well. It is also worth noting that the means for severe injury, 

while small, are higher for the incident than they were for all past violence. 

The data from the most commonly reported specific items from the CTS for the incident 

are shown in Exhibit 10. Every item on the list shows lower frequencies for men in the 

Exhibit 10: Comparative Use of Particular Tactics in the Arrest Incident by Type of Group 

(In percent) 

 Characteristic EVOLVE 

(N = 420) 

Explore 

(N = 124) 

Total 

(N = 544) 

Pushed or shoved her 43.9 57.3 47.0 ** 

Grabbed her 44.2 54.8 46.7 * 

Slapped her 18.7 33.1 22.0 ** 

She felt physical pain the next day 19.7 28.6 21.8 * 

She went to a doctor because of the fight 13.8 15.8 14.2 

Punched or hit her with something that could hurt 11.5 14.8 12.2 

Twisted her arm or hair 9.1 15.4 10.5 * 

Beat her up 9.8 12.2 10.4 

Choked her 6.4 9.8 7.2 

* p < .05 ** p < .01 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
EVOLVE program, and the majority of these differences are significant statistically. Nearly half

of the men in both groups admitted to pushing or shoving their partners during the incident that 

led to their arrest, and a similar percentage said they had grabbed her. Notably, the men were 

more likely to acknowledge using five of these tactics during the incident (push, punch/hit, cause 

her to feel pain, hurt her enough that she went to a doctor, and beat her up) than they were to 

admit using them during the entire previous history of this relationship. They were equally likely 

to admit grabbing her. 

About a third of the men in both groups admitted they had had the same types of 

“problems” with a different partner. About two-thirds considered at least some part of what had 

occurred in the incident for which they were arrested to have been “domestic violence.” 

Interventions

Information on how the court system had intervened in these cases was not collected 

consistently by programs across sites. However, variations in the response were clear: just 

55.2% of the men in the EVOLVE program, for example, were also serving probation terms. In 

case of problems with group participation, probation officers had options for their responses. 

The remainder of the men in EVOLVE had pled guilty but had not been formally “convicted;” 

they would have to serve a sentence if they did not complete the program successfully. All of 

the men in the comparison site were serving probation terms, however. In addition, 8.5 percent 

of the men in the EVOLVE program and 12.5 percent of the men in the comparison site also had 

open child protection cases (a difference that approaches statistical significance, at p = .056). As 

a source of further complication, 11.6 percent of the men in EVOLVE were also involved in a 

family or civil legal case; this information was not available for the men in the comparison site.

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 37 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The Men’s Perspectives 

The men were asked several open-ended questions during interviews to obtain their 

perspectives on their experiences in their relationships and with the legal system. Responses to 

three of those questions in the intake interview add richness to the quantitative descriptions of 

the men, and provide a context for their group and subsequent experiences. These questions 

asked the men to provide a description of what they liked most about the relationship with the 

woman they were being sanctioned for abusing,, a description of the incident which led to their 

present arrest, and how their behavior had (or had not) constituted “domestic violence.” 

What they liked most about the relationship. The men’s responses varied considerably. Some

clusters were one-dimensional—the men could only describe a single aspect of the relationship 

(if any) that they liked. Examples included that she looked good, had money, kept her hair 

together, was clean, liked shopping and good sex. Several commented that there was nothing 

they particularly liked—“we were just fooling around”—but this was not common. 

More of the responses were somewhat more complex and multidimensional. Some

described a relationship that had changed dramatically, from wonderful to terrible: As one man 

said, “Nothing [is good] now. Before, everything was different. One thing went bad and 

everything went bad.” 

Most commonly, descriptions focused on what she did for him. Some of these 

emphasized her domestic activities: she was the mother of his children, a good cook, was clean, 

and kept a “good house.” Others focused on the support, acceptance, and strength she provided 

for him, and the ways she helped him to “be a better person,” as in the following: 

• She knows when I’m slipping or messing up. She’s my backbone. She’s supportive. 

• She is cool. She is the only one that goes to bat for me. She really understands me. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• She’s good to me. She knows me better than I know myself. Just being there for me. 

Another common cluster of responses focused on her attributes and strengths, sometimes 

including her independence, as the following examples illustrate: 

• She likes to better herself; she doesn’t settle for less. She is very goal-oriented. She’s 

smart—she graduated from high school. (And...) she listens, and will do anything 

for her man. 

• She is a good woman, a loving woman, a good mother. She has backbone, and she 

sees through me. 

• She has pride—she does for herself. She takes care of the bills and takes care of 

business. 

• She is smart, positive, and [has] good self-esteem. All together, she is a great 

package. 

Finally, some of the men (but this was less common than the other patterns) emphasized 

sharing, and an element of partnership, in the relationship, as the following excerpts illustrate: 

• Our goals. We have so much in common that we both like to do. Everything! 

• We relate to each other. We do fine when everyone stays out of our business. Our 

communication is good. We finish each other’s sentences. 

Descriptions of the incident. The men’s descriptions of the incident for which they had 

ultimately been sent to the program often contained multiple elements. One was the topic, if the 

incident occurred in the context of an argument (which was not always the case), such as 

jealousy on the part of either about the other’s intimate involvement with people outside the 

relationship, drug or alcohol use, smoking, money, and family or children. Another element was 

the affective context in which the incident occurred. Some of the men said they had been upset 

about something else (such as work, family trouble, car trouble) when the dynamics escalated, or 

they were “high” on drugs or alcohol. A third element was the behavior they described—the 

level or type of violence that occurred, who did it, and in what sequence. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
All of these elements provided components for the men’s assignment of responsibility 

that often came through in their descriptions. All of these elements appeared to be influenced at 

times by the men’s prior exposure to and experience of court-ordered interventions, as well as 

their investment in the relationship. The descriptions appear to be compatible with Hearn’s 

framework41 of men’s descriptions of their involvement in violence, which involves five clusters: 

1) repudiations (full denial of responsibility; removal of self and intention from the action); 

quasi-repudiations (includes recognition of certain types of violence, but also lack of awareness 

and minimization); 3) excuses and justifications (violence is recognized, but the men deny 

responsibility or blame); 4) confessions (recognition of violence and acceptance of responsibility 

and/or blame for it); and 5) composite and contradictory accounts (various combinations of the 

first four clusters). 

Repudiations were common, and essentially asserted that nothing had happened, either 

because the woman or someone else had lied or because it was an accident. They also include 

assertions that the man is really the victim in the incident. The following descriptions illustrate 

this pattern: 

• I was in court for a previous case (robbery) and [she], who was 7 months pregnant 

and her new boyfriend attacked me while I was leaving the court. I was hit by him

and he fled the scene. She said that I hit her and I was arrested for domestic violence. 

• I cannot really tell you what happened because nothing happened. I can tell you what 

the police report said. I came to the house to get my son and it said I hit her while she 

was holding my son. It said I hit a mirror and the glass cut her. 

• I was injured on my job the previous day. We were driving over to my mother’s 

house. The car was not registered and the cops were pulling people over. We pulled 

the car into my mother’s parking lot and attempted to walk away. We thought that 

the cops were going to leave, but they didn’t, and we went back to the car. Soon after 

that we were surrounded by the cops. They asked me to get out of the car. I was told 

by the cops that a witness has said I was choking my wife. I did not touch her at all. 

I was arrested with unlawful restraint. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• I was talking to my ex-wife on the phone and [the victim] tried to grab the phone and 

it hit her in the nose and she had a bloody nose. She called the police. 

• One morning we were smoking marijuana. She thought I was going to leave her for 

my child’s mother. She started to cry. I was making a sandwich, and I had a knife in 

my hand. I went to comfort her and give her a hug, and I accidentally cut her in the 

back. I called the cops. She told me to leave because I had other warrants. I turned 

myself in. I was arrested for assault and rape. The rape charge was dropped—she 

said that out of anger. 

• She came over to my friend’s house to try to talk me into backing out of court and to 

get back with her. She smashed the car on the hood. I told her I was going to call the 

police but I didn’t because in the past I would get arrested, too. (We were in the 

process of court for custody of the kids.) She went to the police two weeks later and 

told them I pushed her. I had to take this program to avoid trial. 

Quasi-repudiations were very common in the men’s descriptions. Although they include 

recognition of some types of violence, it is minimized. Variations included (again) assertions 

that the violence was an accident, that it was “only” verbal, it occurred because of drinking or 

drug use, and it’s really because of the interpretations and interference of over-zealous outsiders. 

The following illustrations were typical of this pattern: 

• We were breaking up. She was arguing and fussing. We had my lunch in a bag—a 

sack of cans. I swung the bag in the opposite direction from her. The bag ripped, and 

a can hit her. I didn’t even know it hit her. 

• Me and her got in an argument...and she tried to shut the door in my face. I tried to 

open it and it hit her in the face. She went to the hospital... 

• She wanted to separate and be alone. She took off that day and went to the park. I 

went there and she was drinking...We got into an argument and I threatened her, 

saying I was going to kill her. There was no physical violence. I tried to give her a 

hug. But there were a lot of people around. I guess she called the cops. 

• We started drinking at 9 am and drank all day. I guess I hit her because I was 

arrested. I blacked out and woke up in jail. 

• I had been drinking a great amount. I don’t remember what I did. All I can tell you is 

what she said I did, which was that I arrived home and started arguing with her. I 

started smacking her and hit her against the wall. She tried to leave but I wouldn’t let 

her. She said I then pulled out a knife and threatened to kill her and myself. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• She saw me earlier in the day with another girl, and she got mad. We started arguing. 

Someone flagged the police because she was screaming. They thought I hit her. 

They arrested me for screaming. [It was a] “baby mama drama.” Why do you think 

you were arrested? Because people saw a couple screaming, with a kid there. People 

don’t mind their fucking business. 

Excuses and justifications were the most common pattern in the men’s descriptions. The 

most common excuse was that either he or they both were drinking; examples are not needed to 

illustrate this dimension. The most common justification was that the woman had “started it,” as 

the following examples show: 

• We were walking and she just started flipping and talking shit and her attitude 

changed. I started arguing some things back and forth. She got me mad and I 

fucking kicked her. She hit me back. I got set up. 

• Her jealousy caused a fight between us. I was out drinking with some friends and she 

came up and started hitting me. I pushed her away. The neighbors called the police 

and said I hit her. I was just protecting myself because she was hitting me. 

• My wife was involved in an adulterous situation. We got into an argument. She was 

using that situation to escalate my anger. I tried to avoid her by going to the 

bathroom. She followed me to the door and told me to get out of the bathroom. 

While I was in the bathroom, I had too much time to think. I opened the door and she 

knew I was angry. I grabbed her by the hair and pulled her to the floor. I told her not 

to mess with me and I stormed out of the house. When I came back she told me that 

she had called the police. I told her that we both were going to jail, and I tried to cut 

myself. She grabbed the baby and left the house. I left, too, and found out later that a 

warrant was out for my arrest. 

• [He found her in bed with another man, so] I had to beat her up. 

• We had an argument about my daughter that I had with another girl. It started out as 

a verbal argument, until she slapped me and I slapped her back. She started the 

incident—she always does. I always apologize. 

• We began arguing. I got mad and I slapped her. When I slapped her, she calmed 

down...I don’t like hitting women, but sometimes she keeps talking and talking so I 

have to hit her. 

• There was no argument. She runs her mouth, and that triggers me. I walk away. She 

doesn’t want me to walk away [and] follows me and calls me names until I hit her. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Confessions were not unusual, and were generally straightforward. The following single 

illustration is typical in its simplicity:

• We got in an argument about another female. I popped her upside the head and left. 

Composites and contradictory descriptions form a residual category. They combined 

aspects of the first four clusters in such diverse ways that examples are not provided. Most of 

the men’s descriptions, however, fit reasonably into one of the first four groups. 

Do they consider what happened to be “domestic violence?” As previously reported, although 

about two-thirds of the men said they thought of what had occurred as domestic violence, the 

other third did not. Of those who accepted the definition, most were quite literal: it was domestic 

violence because a) the law said it was, or b) the behavior was physical, and the man and his 

victim lived together. There was also a substantial group of men who referred to earlier courtordered education they had received, and commented that even emotional and psychological 

abuse should be considered domestic violence, “because it hurts.” 

For the one-third of the men who did not think what had occurred was domestic violence, 

several considerations predominated: 

• Who was involved. They did not regard an incident as domestic violence if a third 

person “caused” it, such as a daughter or a family friend. 

• The type or severity of violence involved. For many of the men, actual “hitting” is 

necessary for it to count. Pushing, shoving, or grabbing are not enough. As one man 

said, “It was wrong to grab her, but it wasn’t serious enough to count as domestic 

violence.” Another noted, “I don’t consider slapping a person as domestic violence 

when other people are really beating them up.”

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• The location. For some men, the abuse has to occur within the residence in order to 

count as domestic violence. 

• The issue involved. For many of these men, jealousy is an issue that disqualifies the 

label of domestic violence. As one man complained, “They need to assess the 

problem. It’s a jealousy thing, not a domestic violence things.” Another concurred, 

“It was a case of jealousy. I don’t consider that violence.” 

• The frequency of the behavior. Many of these men think that the violence must be 

repeated in order to count; if it is “just” one incident, it should not count. As one 

commented, “I don’t think it is [domestic violence] because it’s not all the time. 

• The cause of the behavior. Many thought that if drugs or alcohol or the woman 

“caused” it, then it should not count as domestic violence. One man who disavowed 

the label explained that “she made it physical and it causes me to hit her back.” If she 

was physically involved in the incident, it should not count. 

Summary. This brief summary of responses to three questions on the intake interview help to 

provide a context for understanding the men’s perspectives as they approach the group 

interventions. The relationships in which they are or were involved with the women they have 

been judged guilty of abusing vary dramatically, from brief encounters to lengthy partnerships 

that include children. Most of the men, to one degree or another, do not feel that they were 

primarily responsible for what happened. Instead, the woman or other situational factors are at 

least partly to blame. Although two-thirds acknowledge that the behavior constituted “domestic 

violence,” a large portion of this group is simply accepting the reality of the legal definition. 

Another third has reasons to reject the label. Clearly, resistance to the institutional label of them

as “batterers” or “abusive men” is common. When so many begin groups with such efforts to 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
portray themselves as non-violent or as victims of the system, circumstances, or their partners, 

groups interventions face considerable challenges. 

Group Completion

The men completed the two types of group at very similar rates: 63.5 percent successfully 

completed EVOLVE and 65.2 percent completed the comparison group. Exhibit 11 shows the 

Exhibit 11: Successful Group Completion by Race/Ethnicity and Type of Group 

 African 

American

Latino/ 

Hispanic Caucasian Other Total

EVOLVE: % successful 55.9 71.8 66.3 63.6 63.5 * 

(N = 394)

Comparison: % successful 65.3 68.0 58.3 0.0 65.2

(N = 112)

* p < .05 

comparative successful completion rates across race and ethnicity for each type of group. Most 

notably, the Latino/Hispanic men in both groups were most likely to be successful, and at 

somewhat higher rates, in the EVOLVE group than in the comparison group. It is also notable, 

however, that the African American men were less likely to complete the EVOLVE group 

successfully relative to Latinos/Hispanics and Caucasians, and relative to African American men 

in the comparison group. Caucasians have the lowest rate of successful completion in the 

comparison group, but those figures are influenced by the low numbers of Caucasian men in that 

group, and apparent differences across race/ethnicity are not significant statistically. The 

racial/ethnic differences within the EVOLVE group, however, reach statistical significance. 

Alcohol problems as measured by the MAST were significantly associated with 

successful completion only in the EVOLVE group, although the trend was in that direction for 

the comparison group, as well. Seventy percent of the men in EVOLVE who were classified as 

“low risk” completed the program successfully, compared to 61.6 percent of the high risk men 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and 53.9 percent of those rated as alcoholics. A similar pattern was found among the men in the 

comparison group, with successful completion rates of 68.2 percent, 67.6 percent and 58.1 

percent, respectively. Perhaps this difference is more dramatic among the men in EVOLVE in 

part because problem drinking makes attendance at two meetings per week more difficult. It is 

not, however, that simple. Although Caucasians in EVOLVE were significantly more likely than 

either African Americans or Hispanics/Latinos to score in the “alcoholic” range (53.3 percent 

did, compared with 27.1 percent of African Americans and 23.2 percent of Hispanics/Latinos), 

the relationship between scores on the MAST and successful completion of EVOLVE is only 

significant statistically (p < .03) among African Americans: 64 percent of those rated “low risk” 

were successful completers, compared to just 41.2 percent of those rated “alcoholic.” (Apparent 

differences by MAST score were in the same direction for Caucasians and Latinos/Hispanics, but 

were less dramatic and not significant statistically.) 

Completion rates were highest for men with just one or two prior convictions, in both 

groups (but findings were significant statistically only for the comparison group), and 

substantially lower for men with 11 or more (44.2 percent in EVOLVE and 33.3 percent in the 

comparison group). However, although the trends were generally in the same direction for 

analyses with only prior convictions for domestic violence offenses, finding were not significant 

statistically for either group (and the highest rates of successful completion in the comparison 

group were among men with two to five prior convictions for domestic violence!). It is also 

worth noting that African American men in EVOLVE were more likely than the others to have 

six or more prior convictions (37.1 percent, compared to 29.3 percent of Caucasians and 21.6 

percent of Latinos/Hispanics), although these apparent differences were not significant 

statistically.

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Significantly higher rates of completion (about a 20 percent difference in both groups) 

were also found for men who were employed at the time of intake. Further, African American 

men in both groups were less likely than the others to be employed at that time. Although men 

who were legally married to the woman they had abused were more likely to complete the group 

than men in other statuses (both groups), the differences did not reach levels of statistical 

significance. Similarly, relationships between marital status and race/ethnicity did not differ 

significantly in either group, although Caucasians in the EVOLVE groups were nearly twice as 

likely as African Americans or Latinos/Hispanics to be legally married (32.6 percent, compared 

to 12.2 percent and 16.5 percent, respectively). Notably, there were no significant or clear 

substantive relationships between number of years in the relationship and completion status, nor 

between number of years in the relationship and race/ethnicity. 

Some of the clinical ratings were found to be significantly associated with successful 

completion rates, especially among men in the EVOLVE group. For them, men who scored in 

the “normal” range were more likely to complete the group successfully than were those who 

scored in the pathological range on the following scales: avoidance, depression, masochism, drug 

dependence, and antisocial. Significant differences were found in both groups for men on the 

borderline, anxiety, and schizotypal scales. Some differences were found in relationships 

between clinical scale scores and successful completion rates across race and ethnicity among 

men in the EVOLVE groups (but not in the comparison group), as well. Specifically, differences 

were found for African American men (but not the others) between those in the “normal” range 

and those in the “pathological” range in the avoidance, depression, antisocial and anxiety scales. 

Study data indicate that 22 men—11 in each type of group—were negatively discharged 

but started the group again later. Four in EVOLVE and 5 in the comparison group completed. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Recidivism. 

The men who successfully completed the groups also had lower rates of recidivism, as measured 

by arrests with convictions following the start of the program, and looking only at the men who 

started their group at least a year before recidivism data were collected. Of the men in this 

timeframe in EVOLVE, 83.4 percent of those who completed the program successfully had no 

subsequent arrests leading to conviction, compared to 58.3 percent of those who were negatively 

discharged (this is statistically significant at p < .001). A similar pattern was found for the 

comparison group, although it was less dramatic, and not statistically significant. In that group, 

75.9 percent of the completers had no recidivism, compared to 57.6 percent of those who were 

negatively discharged. 

At least as important, the same patterns were found for arrests that led to convictions for 

domestic violence offenses, as well. 91.4 percent of the men who were successful in EVOLVE 

had no subsequent convictions for domestic violence, compared to 80.0 percent of those who 

were negatively discharged (the difference is significant at p < .02). For men in the comparison 

group, those figures were 93.0 percent and 75.0 percent, respectively (this difference, too, was 

statistically significant at p < .04). 

These differences in recidivism held up within racial/ethnic groups, as well. Among the 

men in EVOLVE (again, who started their group at least a year before recidivism data were 

collected), 80.7 percent of African American men who completed the group had no new arrests 

leading to conviction, compared to 56.1 percent of those who were negatively discharged (p < 

.01); no new domestic violence arrests leading to conviction were found for 90.7 percent of 

African American completers, compared to 77.4 percent of those who were negatively 

discharged (not quite significant statistically). Comparable figures for African American men in 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
the comparison site were 70.4 percent vs. 41.7 percent for any type of crime, and 92.3 percent vs. 

54.5 percent for a domestic violence crime. 

Similarly, 83.3 percent of Latino/Hispanic men in EVOLVE who completed the group 

had no new arrests leading to conviction, compared to 56.0 percent of those who were negatively 

discharged (p < .03); no new domestic violence arrests leading to conviction were found for 90.3 

percent of Latino/Hispanic completers, compared to 83.3 percent of those who were negatively 

discharged (not significant statistically). Comparable figures for Latino/Hispanic men in the 

comparison site were 82.1 percent vs. 68.8 percent for any type of crime, and 92.9 percent vs. 

87.5 percent for a domestic violence crime. 

Finally, 90.0 percent of Caucasian men in EVOLVE who completed the group had no 

new arrests leading to conviction, compared to 75.0 percent of those who were negatively 

discharged (not significant statistically); no new domestic violence arrests leading to conviction 

were found for 95.9 percent of Caucasian completers, compared to 83.3 percent of those who 

were negatively discharged (not significant statistically). Comparable figures for Caucasian men 

in the comparison site are not provided because the numbers are so small, but the pattern of 

differences between completers and those who were negatively discharged is repeated. 

Timing of recidivism. Completers were less likely to have new convictions, and when they did, 

the offenses occurred longer after the men had started the group. Among the successfully 

completing men in EVOLVE who started their group at least a year before recidivism data were 

collected, and were ultimately arrested for a new crime that led to conviction, 22.2 percent did 

not do so until at least a year after they started the group, compared to 10.0 percent of the men 

who were negatively discharged (p < .001). The comparable figures for men in the comparison 

group were 38.5 percent and 7.1 percent respectively (p < .03). The patterns for timing of new 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
domestic violence offenses were similar: men in both groups who committed new crimes and 

successfully completed their programs were more than twice as likely as those who were 

negatively discharged to have waited at least a year before reoffending, although the number of 

men who committed new domestic violence offenses is sufficiently small that the findings do not 

quite reach statistical significance for either group. Again, the comparative patterns found for 

timing of new arrests that led to convictions within racial/ethnic groups are consistent for each 

group: successful completers who were subsequently arrested did so after more time had elapsed 

than was true for those who were negatively discharged—for any type of crime, as well as for 

domestic violence offenses. 

An Advocacy Perspective

The interviews conducted with all seven (two each at the EVOLVE sites, and one at the 

comparison site) of the specialized post-conviction advocates provide some additional 

perspective on the way the programs operate, and the challenges they face. This brief summary 

focuses on two issues: advocacy with the partners of the men in the groups, and perspectives on 

program operations. 

Advocacy issues. As previously noted, the advocates are less likely to have regular contact with 

the victims of the men in these groups because they are no longer involved in the relationship, 

they are angry at the court system, or contact information is out of date. As one noted, “If 

they’re on probation, lots of time has passed since the initial arrest. We’re working with stale 

information. That’s been the biggest challenge. That skews the information I get. The victims I 

can connect with—they’re still involved with their partners.” 

When the women are angry at the system, it is commonly because the program is seen as 

“intrusive” and demanding because it meets so often (twice a week for two hours each session). 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
They maintain that program attendance and frequent court appearances interfere with their 

abusive partner’s ability to work, especially overtime hours. As one advocate reported, “The 

court says that employment problems aren’t our problem. She has to understand that we’re 

doing this for her protection.” One advocate reported that she has seen some special 

considerations made available to middle class men in her jurisdiction, although it does not 

necessarily happen frequently. “..They have been able to convince their probation officers that 

they need to go to another program that meets less frequently. There have been about three in 

the past two months.” 

Advocates reported that the victims with whom they work commonly want to have their 

protective orders modified, so that they can resume contact or living with the men in the groups. 

“It’s hard to have a victim understand that he can’t move back in until he’s established in the 

program. They have a protective order. Maybe it’s not healthy to be back together until time has 

passed. Not yet...The court likes to see the intervention working for some time...Financially it’s 

a burden. The modifications are usually done after they’ve been involved in EVOLVE for ten 

weeks or more.” Another added, “[Victims] will say it’s too much. ‘Something has to be done. 

We have only one car, and I need him to be here for the kids...You have no idea how hard it is. 

You’re making it impossible!’” 

Advocates also work with some of the women about safety issues, even with women who 

no longer want to be involved in the relationship “He may still want to be in the relationship, 

and they are afraid of him coming around and reoffending. They have concerns about their 

children’s exposure to violence. There may be stalking or harassment, and sometimes they will 

contact the police. But sometimes they don’t want to contact the police again, so we work it out 

that their protective order violation is raised in court.” 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Some advocates spoke of cultural differences in the advocacy issues they address. For 

Latinas, one observed, “The women are familiar with men’s control. Anger management is 

strange to many of them. If they’ve been through the [10-week] Family Violence Education 

Program, they’re used to anger management. Some clients will say it’s not necessary, but others

will say ‘This is exactly what he needs.’ Age has a little influence, too. If they’ve been in a long 

relationship, maybe 20 years, the whole arrest process is different for them—that’s just the way 

he is.” 

Some advocates observed that this program has introduced new issues about the limits of

the advocate’s role. One noted, for example, that she wanted to learn the time and location of a 

woman’s partner’s group because she had been trying to serve him with papers related to child 

support. The group facilitators refused to provide the information, because they thought they 

would be helping to “set up” one of their clients. 

Advocates reported that, although the women who are still involved with their partners 

are hopeful about the program, most are more realistic than with earlier interventions that the 

court has tried. As one commented, “They hope he gets something out of the program. I don’t 

think they necessarily expect him to get something. EVOLVE is the last resort. The guy hasn’t 

taken well to treatment—he’s already been through the 10-week program and other things.” The 

victims who are hopeful the intervention can produce the desired changes sometimes become

frustrated. “They’re counting on the interventions to take care of it. When they realize that the 

system can’t do it they get frustrated with the system, or they get resigned to their fate. That’s 

sad.” However, advocates noted that some of the women advocate for as much help as possible 

this time, including substance abuse and/or alcohol treatment, and the court is often able to 

provide resources and referrals. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
For the women who are still hopeful and involved, advocates reported that most of their 

conversations focus on the man in the program and what he needs. “They want him to be a 

father, to take financial responsibility for the kids. They rarely talk about themselves.” As 

another advocate echoed, “Child support plays a role. They want him back on his feet so he can 

go back to supporting the child physically or monetarily.” It is no surprise, then, that the parental 

aspect of the EVOLVE program is a source of hope and enthusiasm for these partners. “They 

always want to know if there’s a parental piece. Their concern is that he become a better father.”

Systemic issues. Three types of systemic issues were raised by advocates: consistency of 

response, court resources, and relationship and coordination with group facilitators. The primary 

concern raised was that the court does not respond consistently to violations and other problems 

that may arise during groups. Most noted this as an area of concern. One was most eloquent: 

“There needs to be a more consistent approach on the part of probation to determine when to 

violate in domestics...When a victim calls and says he’s drinking or abusing her again, I would 

love to be able to review with her what will happen in probation. But I can’t, because it depends 

entirely on the officer...I’ve always argued for consistency...Then you can plan better.” She 

noted, however, that the officers’ inconsistency was related to inconsistency from the court. 

“The experience of PO’s is that if they violated, the court would just order more probation and 

send him back to EVOLVE.” 

Inconsistent court resources were also an issue during the evaluation period. Advocates 

reported that probation officers were affected more than others by state layoffs that occurred. At 

the time of the interview one reported that two officers were now gone and had not been 

replaced. “We don’t know when someone will be reassigned. While they were here it was 

working well—they understood the issues.” 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Finally, relationships with group facilitators affect advocates and the victims with whom

they work. All of the advocates spoke highly of the facilitators working with their court. They 

took active part in court team meetings (in the EVOLVE sites where meetings occurred), and 

were generally responsive to concerns expressed by victims via the advocates. Most of the 

advocates have frequent contact with the facilitators in the course of team meetings, and when 

either has concerns about how the intervention is proceeding, although there is variation across 

courts and the individuals involved. 

Program impact. Most of the advocates reported that they do not have information about how 

the program has affected the men or their victims. What happens in groups is not a common 

topic, and most advocates did not think the women knew very much about what occurred during 

sessions. One advocate, however, reported that “They report positive changes from the program. 

Many men go home and share what happened in the group. I tell [the women] that I will check if 

something he reports sounds weird to them. But he’s been accurate.” 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Discussion 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The findings just reviewed provide a picture of the challenges that can be faced by courtordered group treatment programs for domestically abusive men. The men in this study were 

similar in many respects to those described in other evaluations, on most demographic and 

family background measures. Similar to other studies that investigated clinical attributes, the 

majority of the men did not reveal signs of serious pathology. They were more likely to be men 

of color than most studies, and this was by design. They also had more extensive criminal 

records, especially for domestic violence offenses, than men in most other studies. This, too, 

was by design. This evaluation focused on group interventions intended for men who would 

otherwise be incarcerated, in a state with a history of utilizing community-based alternatives to 

prison whenever the courts consider it possible and reasonable. In fact, the widespread use of 

non-incarcerative alternatives with domestic violence offenders had contributed to the 

development of this program in the first place. 

In this context, the program completion rate of over 63 percent for EVOLVE and 65 

percent for the comparison group is notable. That rate is higher than many other studies, 

particularly for programs with high percentages of men with extensive criminal records and high 

percentages of men of color, and especially when the definition of “completion” was just that—

confirmed attendance at 52 sessions for the EVOLVE program and at least 24 of the 26 in the 

comparison site, combined with completed payments for all sessions. (According to notes in the 

files, at least one EVOLVE participant was negatively discharged after attending all 52 sessions 

because he did not complete his payments.) Some studies, in fact, have used a 3-month cut point

to analyze differences.42 

However, this study did not find some of the same associations with successful group 

completion that others have found. Significant associations were found with employment (for 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
both groups), prior criminal convictions (for the comparison group only), race/ethnicity and 

alcohol dependence (for EVOLVE only), but were only near significance for marital status, and 

educational attainment (and that only for the EVOLVE group). There were no significant 

associations between completion rates for either type of group and specific types of violence or 

psychological/emotional abuse acknowledged during the relationship or during the incident. 

Some of the strongest associations were found between successful completion and scores 

on the clinical scales—particularly for the men in the EVOLVE groups. In particular, men in 

both groups who scored in the pathological range on the Borderline scale were significantly less 

likely than those in the normal range to complete the program successfully. Further attention to 

men with Borderline disorder was urged recently in the discussion of batterer typologies.43 It 

may be that the associations with success for men in the EVOLVE group in particular is an 

artifact of the substantially greater sample size for that group, and not a product of other 

differences between the men or the groups themselves. 

Latinos/Hispanics were the most successful racial/ethnic group in both types of 

intervention group—significantly so in the EVOLVE group. They also were least likely to have 

large numbers of prior convictions and were significantly younger than the African Americans 

and Caucasians in EVOLVE, although youth in general was not associated with greater success. 

Although the reasons for their greater success are not clear from the available analysis, the result 

is certainly encouraging. 

Most troubling was the significantly greater likelihood of African American men to be 

negatively discharged from EVOLVE. This finding is likely attributable to the multiple ways in 

which these men were more associated with higher-risk characteristics than their counterparts. 

To summarize, the African American men were also: more likely to have more than six prior 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
convictions, less likely to be employed, and significantly less likely to complete the program

successfully when they scored in the pathological range on the avoidance, depression, antisocial 

and anxiety scales, and in the alcoholic range on the MAST. Perhaps it is the cumulative impact 

of these (and other) factors that interfered with their successful completion of EVOLVE. 

 Despite these associations with program completion, attempts to develop theoretically 

sound multivariate predictive models of success were totally unsuccessful. Perhaps this is a 

finding in itself, or perhaps it reflects a failure of measurement or imagination. 

As with other studies, the findings show that the men who complete the groups 

successfully have lower rates of recidivism. The patterns in rates of men with no new arrests 

leading to conviction held up strongly within racial/ethnic groups, as well, and were comparable 

across racial/ethnic groups. Further, African American men who successfully completed 

EVOLVE were more likely to remain arrest-free than their counterparts from the comparison site 

(and had the same rates for domestic violence offenses). No specific significant correlations 

were found, however, between the number of new offenses (either criminal acts of any type, or 

of domestic violence offenses in particular) and any clinical scale score or other available 

measure except for number of prior convictions. 

Some of the analytic ambiguities may be attributable to the study’s limitations. 

Differences between the two groups may have been reduced by the incorporation of some of the 

EVOLVE sessions into the curriculum of the comparison group. Inconsistencies in responding 

to violations across group sites, and the occasional practice of returning men to groups from

which they had previously been violated may have compromised fidelity. Measuring criminal 

history and recidivism only by arrest incidents which resulted in convictions may have been too 

conservative a measure, although charges are less likely to be dismissed against people with 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
prior records. Certainly the use of convictions as the recidivism measure only made timing more 

critical in this study. The complications of study enrollment described in the discussion of 

methods meant, again, that intake lasted substantially longer than projected; this, in turn, meant 

that a larger proportion of the men than planned were just finishing their group experience 

shortly before data collection had to stop. Given the amount of time it takes for criminal cases to 

be processed through the system, arrests incidents which will later result in convictions may have 

occurred but not been counted by this study. Despite the need for longer time to elapse, it is also 

true that nearly 87 percent of the men in the study (88.4 percent of the men in EVOLVE, and 

81.3 percent of the men in the comparison group) had started their group a year or longer before 

the recidivism data were collected; these are the men for whom recidivism data were analyzed. 

In fact, 70.3 percent of the men (73 percent of those in EVOLVE and 61.6 percent of the men in 

the comparison group) had completed their group participation at least a year before recidivism

data were obtained. It may be that the higher percentages of men in the comparison group with 

later start dates accounts for some of the results for recidivism: perhaps different patterns would 

be found if the entire sample from each type of group could be included in the comparisons. 

The lack of data from victim reports adds to the challenges of the recidivism measures, as 

well, although this may be less significant in light of the lack of involvement of a majority of 

them in the men’s lives. Under the best of circumstances under current state policy, the 

advocates would only have been able to aid researcher contact with women whose partners had 

cases in the court system. Clearly, despite past successes with research recruitment of victims 

through the advocates, recent and unanticipated changes in policy and victim dynamics make 

new approaches strongly advisable. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The qualitative findings add substantial richness to the results, and provide 

understandings that are compatible with past research, but extend them. In particular, findings 

about the men’s descriptions of their relationships help us to go beyond some of the stereotypical 

assumptions of unidimensionality that are often made. The results related to the men’s 

definitions of their behavior, and their understanding of “domestic violence,” in particular, add 

new material to the available literature. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Implications 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This study has contributed to the understanding of the complexities of systems and 

people that must be addressed if we are to intervene successfully with men who have come to 

court for repeated instances of abuse of their partners. Many of these men have extensive 

histories of witnessing, experiencing and engaging in violence in a domestic context. When they 

are involved in group treatment they may simultaneously be involved in treatment of other 

issues, such as drug or alcohol problems, in civil or family court as well as criminal court, and 

dealing with the loss of a valued relationship. Many will also have other clinical problems that 

can interfere with their successful engagement in the groups. 

While this study did not find that a 52-session, 26-week group had a greater impact on 

recidivism than a group that met for 26 sessions in 26 weeks, it did find that stringently-defined 

completion rates were similar between the two groups, and that those rates were higher than are 

commonly found for lengthy interventions—especially with groups that contain high percentages 

of men with prior records and high percentages of men of color. It also found that general 

recidivism was somewhat lower among successful completers of EVOLVE than their 

counterparts in the comparison group. It may be that the greater “intrusiveness” and resulting 

disruptions in work and family life of the more intense intervention balanced out the potential 

lower impact of lesser dosage. Since other studies have found that the organization and structure 

of interventions can be important, as well as the number of hours involved, further comparative 

research and policy considerations are warranted around this issue. 

The findings that showed that African American men with clinical scores in the 

pathological range for specific dimensions were less likely to complete EVOLVE successfully 

suggest the importance of more complete assessments of men as part of the group referral 

process. Further research is warranted that would focus on the interaction of race/ethnicity and 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
mental health diagnostic categories, to shed additional light on barriers to successful group 

participation, and specialized supports and interventions that might be needed. Continuing the 

research that would advance our understanding of meaningful typologies among those who 

engage in domestic violence would also aid this effort. 

The study also points to the potential impact of resource disruptions and insufficiently 

clear protocols for monitoring and enforcing intervention programs that are part of criminal 

sanctions. If men know in some places that some of them will not experience consequences for 

marginal compliance with court orders, they may have less incentive for full compliance. 

The theme of the importance of attending to men’s roles as fathers was raised by the 

female partners of the men, in particular, but also by the men themselves. Although the evidence 

of the benefits of this attention is not yet clear, it deserves further exploration, in both 

programming and evaluation research. 

Further attention is warranted, as well, to men’s constructions of their behavior, and the 

meanings they attach to different behavioral labels. More research and evaluation designs that 

connect subjective constructions with objective measures are clearly needed. 

Future research needs to pay closer attention to strategies to overcome the rapidly 

growing difficulties involved in longitudinal designs—especially if they call for telephone 

contact. Alternative contact approaches that still do not cross ethical boundaries for 

intrusiveness need to be developed. Experimentation with a reasonable balance of a range of 

incentives would be valuable. 

Finally, the study supports further efforts to develop meaningful group interventions for 

abusive men (it did not address abusive women)—particularly those that are sensitive and 

competent regarding issues of race and ethnicity. Latino men had the highest rates of successful 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 63 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
completion, especially in the EVOLVE groups, and that is a very positive finding. In general, 

nearly two-thirds of these high-risk men completed the groups, and those who did were less 

likely to return to the criminal system. That should provide encouragement for further 

intervention development. The stakes are high. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 64 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

Notes 

1

 See, for example, early evaluations of batterers’ groups. Edleson, Jeffrey and M. Syers. “The

Effects of Group Treatment for Men Who Batter: An 18-Month Follow-Up Study,” Research on 

Social Work Practice 1 (1991): 227-243. Hamberger, Kevin and J. Hastings. 1993. “CourtMandated Treatment of Men Who Assault Their Partner: Issues, Controversies, and Outcomes,” in 

Legal Responses to Wife Assault, ed. Zoe Hilton, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993: 188-229. 

Tolman, Richard and Jeffrey Edleson, “Intervention for Men Who Batter: A Review of Research,” 

in Understanding Partner Violence: Prevalence, Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, ed. S. Stith 

and M. Straus, Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations. 1995: 262-274. Edleson, 

Jeffrey, “Controversy and Change in Batterers’ Programs,” in Future Interventions with Battered

Women and Their Families, ed. Jeffrey. Edleson and Zvi Eisikovitz, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 

1996: 154-169. 

2

 Davis, Robert and B. Taylor. “A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of a 

Randomized Experiment,” Criminology 35, (1997):307-333. 

3

 Described in Jackson, Shelly, Lynette Feder, David R. Forde, Robert C. Davis, Christopher D. 

Maxwell, and Bruce G. Taylor, “Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go from Here?”

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ, June 2003. 

4

 Babcock, Julia and Ramalina Steiner, “The Relationship between Treatment, Incarceration, and 

Recidivism of Battering: A Program Evaluation of Seattle’s Coordinated Community Response 

to Domestic Violence,” Journal of Family Psychology 13 (1999): 46-59. 

5

 Gondolf, Edward, “A 30-Month Follow-Up of Court-Referred Batterers in Four Cities,” 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (2000): 111-128. 

6

 Babcock, Julia, Charles Green, and Chet Robie, “Does Batterers’ Treatment Work? A MetaAnalytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment,” Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2004): 

1023-1053. 

7

 Ibid., p. 1044. 

8

 Jones, Alison, Ralph D’Agostino, Jr., Edward Gondolf, and Alex Heckert, “Assessing the 

Effect of Batterer Program Completion on Reassault Using Propensity Scores,” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence 19 (September 2004): 1002-1020. 

9

 See, for example, Cadsky, O., K. Hanson, M. Crawford, and C. Lalonde “Attrition from a 

Male Batterer Treatment Program: Client-Treatment Congruence and Lifestyle Instability,” 

Violence and Victims 11 (1996): 51-64. DeMaris, A. “Attrition in Batterers’ Counseling: The 

Role of Social and Demographic Factors,” Social Service Review 63 (1989): 142-154. 

Hamberger, Kevin, and James Hastings, “Counseling Male Spouse Abusers: Characteristics of 

Treatment Completers and Dropouts,” Violence and Victims 4 (1989): 275-286. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 65 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

10 See, for example, DeHart, D., R. Kennerly, L. Burke, and D. Follingstad, “Predictors of 

Attrition in a Treatment Program for Battering Men,” Journal of Family Violence 14 (1999): 19-

35. Chen, H., C. Bersani, S. Myers, and R. Denton. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of a CourtSponsored Abuser Abatement Program,” Journal of Family Violence 4 (1989): 309-322. Buttell, 

Frederick, and Cathy Pike, “Investigating Predictors of Treatment Attrition Among CourtOrdered Batterers,” Journal of Social Service Research 28 (2002): 53-68. 

11 For example, Hamberger and Hastings, 1989, Ibid. Rosenbaum, A. R., P. J. Gearan, and C. 

Ondovic, “Completion and Recidivism Among Court and Self-Referred Batterers in a 

Psychoeducational Group Treatment Program: Implications for Intervention and Public Policy,” 

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma 5 (2001): 199-220. Faulkner, K., R. Cogan, 

M. Nolder, and E. Shooter. “Characteristics of Men and Women Completing CognitiveBehavioral Spouse Abuse Treatment,” Journal of Family Violence 6 (1991): 243-254. 

12 Hamberger and Hastings, 1989, Ibid. Taft, Casey, Christopher Murphy, Jeffrey Elliott, and 

Michael Keaser, “Race and Demographic Factors in Treatment Attendance for Domestically 

Abusive Men,” Journal of Family Violence 16 (December 2001): 385-400. 

13 Taft, Casey, Christopher Murphy, Jeffrey Elliott, and Tanya Morrel, “Attendance-Enhancing 

Procedures in Group Counseling for Domestic Abusers,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 48 

(January 2001): 51-60. 

14 Stosny, S. “’Shadows of the Heart’: A Dramatic Video for the Treatment Resistance of 

Spouse Abusers,” Social Work 39 (1994): 686-694. 

15 Tolman, Richard, and G. Bhosley, “A Comparison of Two Types of Pregroup Preparation for 

Men Who Batter,” Journal of Social Service Research 13 (1990): 33-44. 

16 See, for example, Williams, Oliver, “Healing and Confronting the African American Male 

Who Batters,” in Family Violence and Men of Color, ed. Ricardo Carrillo and Jerry Tello, New 

York: Springer, (1998):74-94. Carrillo, Ricardo and Rolando Goubaud-Reyna, “Clinical 

Treatment of Latino Domestic Violence Offenders,” in Family Violence and Men of Color, ed. 

Ricardo Carrillo and Jerry Tello, New York: Springer, (1998): 53-73. See also Gondolf, Edward 

and Oliver Williams, “Culturally Focused Batterer Counseling to African American Men,” 

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2 (October 2001): 283-295. 

17 See Gondolf, Edward, “Who Are These Guys?: Toward a Behavioral Typology of Batterers,” 

Violence and Victims 3 (1988): 187-203. Saunders, Daniel, “A Typology of Men Who Batter 

Women: Three Types Derived from Cluster Analysis,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62 

(1992): 264-275. O’Leary, K. Daniel, “Through a Psychological Lens: Personality Traits, 

Personality Disorders, and Levels of Violence,” in Current Controversies on Family Violence, 

ed. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park: Sage, 1993: 7-30. Johnson, Michael, 

“Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence Against 

Women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995): 283-294. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 66 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

18 Jordan, Carol, “Toward a National Research Agenda on Violence Against Women—Part 2,” a 

special issue of Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (December 2004). 

19 Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy and Jeffrey Meehan, “Typologies of Men Who Are Maritally 

Violent: Scientific and Clinical Implications,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (December 

2004): 1369-1389. 

. 

20 Saunders, Daniel, “The Place of a Typology of Men Who Are ‘Maritally’ Violent Within a 

Nested Ecological Model: A Response to Holtzworth-Munroe and Meehan,” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence 19 (December 2004): 1390-1395. 

21 Prentky, Robert, “Can Sex Offender Classification Inform Typologies of Male Batterers? A 

Response to Holtzworth-Munroe and Meehan,”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 

(December 2004): 1405-1411. 

22 For example, Gondolf, Edward, “Who Are These Guys?...” Ibid. and Saunders, Daniel, “A 

Typology of Men...” Ibid. 

23 Buchbinder, Eli and Zvi Eisikovits, “Between Normality and Deviance: The Breakdown of

Batterers’ Identity Following Police Intervention,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (April 

2004): 443-476. 

24 Ibid.:445. 

25 See, for example, Ptacek, James, “Why Do Men Batter Their Wives?” in Feminist 

Perspectives on Wife Abuse, ed. Kirsti Yllo and Michelle Bograd, New Bury Park: Sage, 1988: 

133-157; Hearn, Jeff, The Violences of Men, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998; Eisikovits, Zvi, H. 

Goldblatt, and Z. Winstok, “Partner Accounts of Intimate Violence: Towards a Theoretical 

Model,” Families in Society 80 (1999): 606-619. 

26 Ibid., 460. 

27 For example, Gamache, Denise, Jeffrey Edleson and Schock, 1988, “Coordinated Police, 

Judicial, and Social Service Response to Woman-Battering: A Multiple Baseline Evaluation Across

Three Communities.” Pp. 193-209 in G. Hotaling, et al., eds., Coping with Family Violence. 

Newbury Park: Sage. Syers, M. and J. Edleson, 1992, “The Combined Effects of Coordinated 

Intervention in Woman Abuse.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7: 490-502. Crowell, N. and A. 

Burgess, Eds., 1996, Understanding Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. Brown, J., 1997, “Working Toward Freedom from Violence: The Process of

Change in Battered Women.” Violence Against Women, 3: 5-26. Davies, J., E. Lyon, and D. 

Monti-Catania, 1998, Safety Planning with Battered Women: Complex Lives, Difficult Choices. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strube, M., 1988, “The Decision to Leave an Abusive Relationship:

Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues.” Psychological Bulletin 104: 236-250. Buzawa, E., G.

Hotaling, and A. Klein, 1998, “The Response to Domestic Violence in a Model Court: Some

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 67 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

Initial Findings and Implications.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16: 185-206; Murphy, C., 

P. Musser, and K. Maton, 1998, “Coordinated Community Intervention for Domestic Abusers: 

Intervention System Involvement and Criminal Recidivism.” Journal of Family Violence, 13: 

263-284; and Weisz, A., R. Tolman, and L. Bennett, 1998, “An Ecological Study of 

Nonresidential Services for Battered Women Within a Comprehensive Community Protocol for 

Domestic Violence.” Journal of Family Violence, 13: 395-415; 

28 Sullivan, C. and D. Bybee, 1999, “Reducing Violence Using Community Based Advocacy for 

Women with Abusive Partners.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67: 43-53. 

Sullivan, C., 1991, “The Provision of Advocacy Services to Women Leaving Abusive Partners.” 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6: 41-54. 

29 Peled, E. and J. Edleson, 1994, “Advocacy for Battered Women: A National Survey.” Journal 

of Family Violence, 9: 285-296. Lyon, E., and P. Mace, 1991, “Family Violence and the Courts: 

Implementing a Comprehensive New Law.” Pp 167-179 in D. Knudsen and J. Miller, eds., Abused

and Battered: Social and Legal Responses to Family Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, Inc.

30 See Davies, Lyon and Monti-Catania, 1998, note 7. See also Hart, B., 1996, “Battered Women 

and the Criminal Justice System.” Pp. 98-114 in E. Buzawa and C. Buzawa, Eds. Do Arrests 

and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; and Pence, E., 2001, “Advocacy on 

Behalf of Battered Women.” Pp. 329-343 in Renzetti, C., J. Edleson, and R. Bergen, Eds., 

Sourcebook on Violence Against Women, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

31 “Experiment Demonstrates How to Hold Batterers Accountable,” National Institute of Justice 

Journal 244 (July 2000): 29. 

32 The original proposed design focused only on the EVOLVE sites. The comparison site was 

added to provide an additional comparative reference point. Although the projected sample size 

was smaller than that for the three EVOLVE sites combined, power analysis indicated it was 

sufficient for its purpose. 

33 See Lyon, Eleanor. “Special Session Domestic Violence Courts: Enhanced Advocacy and 

Interventions.” Final report to the National Institute of Justice. 2002. Grant 98-WE-UX—31. 

State-supported evaluations spanning nine previous years in these courts also contributed to 

familiarity and confidence in this approach. 

34 Selzer, M. “The Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST): The Quest for a New Diagnostic 

Instrument,” American Journal of Psychiatry 3 (1971): 176-181. 

35 For example, Gondolf’s evaluation of 4 “model” programs, cited previously. 

36 Straus, Murray, Sherry Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David Sugarman. “The Revised 

Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2),” Journal of Family Issues, 17 (May 1996): 283-316. 

37 Sackett, L. and Daniel Saunders. “The Impact of Different Forms of Psychological Abuse on 

Battered Women,” Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 105-117. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 68 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

38 Gondolf, Edward, and Crystal Deemer, “Phoning Logistics in a Longitudinal Follow-Up of 

Batterers and Their Partners,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (July 2004): 748. 

39 Differences across sites in race/ethnicity were much less dramatic at the time this evaluation 

was designed. The magnitude of this difference in the study may reflect demographic changes in 

the urban area that houses the comparison site (its “Hispanic” population is growing more 

rapidly than the other sites, according to the Census), or have other explanations. 

40 See Millon, Theodore, Roger Davis, and Carrie Millon, MCMI-III Manual, 2nd edition, 

Minneapolis: NCS, Inc., 1997: 118. 

41 Hearn, Jeff, The Violences of Men, Ibid., 108-110. 

42 See, for example, Gondolf, Edward, “A 30-Month Follow-up...”, Ibid. He found a 54% total 

completion rate for the court-ordered men in his samples. 

43 Holtzworth-Munroe and Meehan, Ibid., 1385. 

Impact Evaluation of Special Session Domestic Violence: Enhanced Advocacy and Interventions Page 69 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.