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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs 

To Combat Violence Against Women 

Author(s): Douglas B. Wilson, Ph.D.; Kevin Batye; Roberto 

Riveros, Ph.D. 

Document No.: 222115 

Date Received: March 2008 

Award Number: 2005-WG-BX-0010 

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.
TESTING AND EVALUATION 

OF THE USE OF 

POLYGRAPHS TO COMBAT 

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Final Report 

March 11, 2008 

Authors: 

Douglas B. Wilson, Ph.D., BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

Kevin Batye, Chief Probation Officer, DeKalb County State Court 

Probation, Decatur, Georgia 

Roberto Riveros, Ph.D., Director, Riveros Counseling Services, Decatur, 

Georgia 

 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-WG-BX-0010 

awarded 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 

Submitted by: 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 

24 Crescent Street, Suite 102 

Waltham, MA 02453-4360 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

ABSTRACT 

The study, Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence 

Against Women, examines the applicability of polygraphy to post-conviction 

management of high-risk domestic violence abusers. It tests whether polygraphy 

provides information about risky behaviors that is predictive of additional near-term 

arrests of these probationers. To be efficacious in the management of these risks, 

polygraphy must reveal behaviors that the criminal justice system would not otherwise 

know and that if not moderated by interventions, would lead to additional crimes. 

 To conduct this study, the DeKalb County State Court Probation Department 

identified 321 high-risk domestic violence probationers who had a mix of previous 

violent and nonviolent misdemeanor convictions. Probation allocated these men to a 

treatment family violence intervention site and 10 analogous control sites in DeKalb 

County. The treatment site facilitator, at the end of one month of psycho-educational 

classes, asked the enrolled men if they would volunteer for a polygraph test, and if they 

continued their enrollment, asked them again to take a second polygraph at the end of the 

fourth month of classes. The treatment and control group samples balanced the 

demographic and criminal characteristics of the men in the treatment site and control sites 

across 11 demographic and criminal record variables. Forty-three of the 87 men assigned 

to the treatment site took at least one polygraph. 

The study classified the information collected in the pre-polygraph interview 

procedure and the polygraph test into four risky behaviors: illegal drug use other than 

marijuana; the possession or handling of firearms; involvement in additional physical 

abuse, regardless of gender; and the polygrapher’s judgment of deceptive polygraph 

responses on the polygraph test that followed the pre-polygraph interview. These 

behaviors were extra-marginal in that they were in addition to probationer’s widespread 

use of alcohol and marijuana. 

These extra-marginal risky behaviors predicted subsequent arrests within the 

study period. In this test, the grade for 0-1 risky behaviors is 1.0; the grade for 2-3 risky 

behaviors is 2.0; the grade for illegal drug consumption other than marijuana and, at the 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation ii
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation iii

same time, gave answers that the polygrapher judged as deceptive is 3.0. A grade greater 

than 1.0 indicates an elevated likelihood of recidivism. The primary statistical measure 

used was the area under the Relative Operating Characteristic curve (ROC/AUC), and the 

related test measures of sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive 

values. The sensitivity of the test is 0.79. The specificity is 0.86. The accuracy of the 

test is 0.84. The empiric ROC/AUC is 0.85. This qualifies as a good test. 

This small study suggests that polygraphy can assist probation departments to 

manage the risky behaviors of domestic violence probationers who have an elevated risk 

of repeated criminal behavior, and direct them to appropriate interventions to modify 

their risky behaviors. This suggests that an appropriate approach to high-risk domestic 

violence probationers is to interdict their criminogenic behaviors and go beyond the 

power and control curriculum of family violence programs. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

STUDY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The cooperation of DeKalb County is deeply appreciated. The goal of 

Kevin Batye and Roberto Riveros, Ph.D. is to improve the habilitation of batterers. 

It requires self-confidence and a willingness to tolerate discomfort for local 

organizations to welcome an outside organization to review their operations, even 

when the purpose is to do better. 

During this study, a number of DeKalb County persons provided important help. 

Michelle Deutch, Victim Liaison, ably administered the survey of victim abuse and 

provided insight into the interpretation of the responses. Natalie Dunn and Jennifer 

Waindle, probation officers with the DeKalb County State Court Probation Department, 

developed the initial study databases. Probation officers Glenda Chatman, Sherry 

Coberly, and Ladonna Warner, as well as Natalie Dunn and Jennifer Waindle identified 

the high-risk men within their caseloads. Dan Sosnowski and Kristi Rosanski of S.O.S. 

Services, Inc. expertly administered and interpreted the polygraph tests. Sgt. Jay Eisner, 

Head, DeKalb County Police Department Domestic Violence Unit, provided the police 

incident reports, which were critical to understanding the circumstances and level of 

violence of the domestic violence incidents. Finally, two anonymous reviewers, who 

reviewed a study draft, provided insights and criticisms, which spurred the study’s 

needed improvement. 

NIJ, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice grant 2005-WG-BX0010 supported the work. The views of this report are those of the authors and do not 

represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

March 2008 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation iv
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................II

STUDY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... VI

STUDY INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................VI

STUDY RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................VII

Risky Behavior Thresholds and Subsequent Arrests ............................................................................viii

THE BENEFITS OF POLYGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................IX

INTEGRATING POLYGRAPHY AND PROBATION ..........................................................................................................X

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................1

THE POLYGRAPH AND ITS INTERACTION WITH PROBATION.......................................................................................2

THE HIGH-RISK PROBATIONER STUDY COHORT .......................................................................................................3

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY TEXT.................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN DEKALB COUNTY AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................................................5

THE PLACE................................................................................................................................................................5

Table 1: The Place: Georgia and DeKalb County Demographics............................................................ 5

THE POLICE...............................................................................................................................................................6

THE COURTS AND THE SOLICITOR ..............................................................................................................................7

STATE COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENT .................................................................................................................9

THE FAMILY VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM .................................................................................................11

The Abusers...........................................................................................................................12

The Victims............................................................................................................................13

Table 2: Survey Response Rate and Victim Liaison Operations Contact Rate ...................................... 15

Table 3: Victim Survey Responses........................................................................................................ 16

COMPARISON OF VICTIM RESPONSES AND POLICE REPORT INFORMATION .............................................................17

CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................................20

 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND OUTCOME ......................................................................................................26

THE RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................................27

Chart 1: Flow of Probation Cohort through Treatment & Control Sites............................................... 27

Chart 2: Flow of Probation Cohort to Next Arrest During the Study Period ....................................... 28

Table 4: Probation Violations Based On Pre-Polygraph Interview....................................................... 30

Table 5: Risky Behavior Indicated in Polygraph Pre-test Interview and the Polygrapher’s 

Interpretation of the Probationer’s Responses........................................................................ 31

Table 6: Risky Behavior Thresholds and Subsequent Arrests ............................................................... 32

Chart 3: Indications of Risky Behavior and Subsequent Arrests Based on Polygraph Response ......... 33

PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO PREDICT BATTERER RECIDIVISM........................................................................................34

Table 7: Comparison of Instruments Designed to Predict Domestic Violence Re-abuse Based on 

ROC/AUC.............................................................................................................................. 39

CHAPTER 5: STUDY CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................41

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................45

APPENDIX: VICTIM HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVEY......................................................47

BOTEC Analysis Corporation v
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Study Introduction 

This study examines the applicability of polygraphy to post-conviction risk 

management of high-risk domestic violence abusers. It tests whether polygraphy 

provides information about risky behaviors predictive of additional near-term arrests of 

these probationers. To be efficacious in the management of these risks, polygraphy must 

reveal behaviors that the criminal justice system would not otherwise know and that if not 

moderated by interventions, would lead to additional arrests. 

Sex offender therapists have utilized polygraphy to provide information about 

risky behaviors predictive of additional near-term criminal behavior. Kim English in a 

commentary about sex offenders and polygraphy writes, “The value of the postconviction polygraph is obtaining information about dangerous behavior that otherwise 

would remain unknown, and then acting on this information before a new sex crime is 

committed.”1 

DeKalb County, Georgia, State Court Probation Department during an 18-month 

period, identified domestic violence probationers, whom probation considered to have an 

elevated risk of re-offending. These men had, prior to their index domestic violence 

conviction, a mix of convictions for domestic violence, assault, substance abuse, property 

crimes, major motor vehicle crimes, larceny, and other crimes. Probation assigned these 

high-risk men to a treatment site family violence program and 10 family violence 

program control sites. The treatment site, at the end of one month of psycho-educational 

classes, asked the enrolled men if they would volunteer for a polygraph test, and if they 

continued their enrollment, asked them again to take a second polygraph at the end of the 

fourth month of classes. The treatment site granted a reduction in program tuition for 

each completed polygraph. Forty-nine percent of the 87 men assigned to the treatment 

site completed at least one polygraph. (n=43) 

The 321 high-risk probationers provided a balanced sample with regard to the 

demographic and criminal characteristics of the men in the treatment and control groups. 

Logistic regressions across eleven independent variables could not discriminate among 

men assigned to either group. In addition, logistic regression could not discriminate 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation vi
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

among the men enrolled in the control sites and the men enrolled in the treatment site 

who either volunteered or did not volunteer for the polygraph. 

Study Results 

The post-conviction pre-polygraph interview provided useful information about 

probationer behavior. Based on the pre-polygraph interview data, eighty-one percent 

violated one or more conditions of their probation. Specifically, 62 percent admitted that 

they recently used intoxicating drugs, 30 percent engaged in abusive behavior, 27 percent 

violated “no contact” orders, and 11 percent owned firearms. 

These polygraph-induced admissions, the study hypothesized, were the result of 

the psychological “bogus pipeline” effect. The bogus pipeline effect is a behavior 

identified by psychologists that results when the psychologists connect volunteering 

subjects to a device, which the psychologists state can determine whether the volunteer is 

telling the truth, even though the device is in fact “electrical junk.” Under these 

circumstances, subjects are more likely to admit to socially undesirable attitudes, beliefs, 

and actions than on a paper and pencil control test. 

The high rate of admission of technical violations of probation during the 

polygraph test contrasts to the 23 percent rate of court issued warrants for probation 

violations. The court issued warrants primarily for process violations, such as absence 

from the FVIP program, failure to meet with their probation officer, and failure to pay the 

required fees. 

The study classified the information collected in the pre-polygraph interviews and 

the polygraph test itself into four risky behaviors: illegal drug use other than marijuana; 

the possession or handling of firearms; involvement in additional physical abuse, 

regardless of gender; and the polygrapher’s judgment of deceptive polygraph responses 

on the polygraph test that followed the pre-polygraph interview. These behaviors were 

extra-marginal in that they were in addition to probationer’s widespread use of common 

intoxicants, such as alcohol and marijuana. 

A review of the men’s criminal history, a victim survey, police DV incident 

reports, and the polygraph results indicated that 88 percent of the men had excessive rates 

of consumption. From these data sources, these men had one or more of the following 

indications of excessive use. They had one or more arrests for intoxication or possession 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation vii
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

of illegal drugs. The victim reported to the Victim Liaison that her abuser was often 

intoxicated. The police report of the domestic violence incident indicated that the abuser 

was intoxicated. Finally, the probationer admitted during the pre-polygraph interview 

that he consumed marijuana, or drank heavily, although qualifying it as within his 

control, or occasionally acknowledging, “He had a problem.” 

The extra-marginal risky behaviors predicted subsequent arrests within the study 

period. In this test, the grade for 0-1 risky behaviors is 1.0; the grade for 2-3 risky 

behaviors is 2.0; and the grade for illegal drug consumption other than marijuana and, at 

the same time, giving answers that the polygrapher judged were deceptive is 3.0. A grade 

greater than 1.0 indicates an elevated likelihood of recidivism. 

The primary statistical measures used to examine the risk management value of 

this scale were the area under the Relative Operating Characteristic curve (ROC/AUC), 

and the related measures of test sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative 

predictive values. The Receiver Operating Characteristic or Relative Operating 

Characteristic (ROC) graph measures the degree to which a test distinguishes true 

positives and true negatives. The standard summary ROC measure is the Area Under the 

Curve (AUC). 

The table below indicates the distribution of the risky behaviors and the arrests 

subsequent to the probationer’s index arrest for domestic violence. The arrest count 

includes those found in the men’s criminal history, which were subsequent to their index 

DV arrest, and additional subsequent arrests they revealed in the pre-polygraph interview, 

Risky Behavior Thresholds and Subsequent Arrests 

Risky 

behavior 

threshold 

Number of 

risky 

behaviors 

Number of 

high-risk 

probationers 

Number 

with 

subsequent 

arrests 

Percent of 

probationers within 

a risky behavior 

threshold with a 

subsequent arrest 

1.0 0-1 28 3 11 

2.0 2-3 9 5 55 

3.0 drug use> 

marijuana plus 

deceptive 

responses 

6 6 100 

Total 43 14 33 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation viii
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

but were absent from their criminal history. Their subsequent arrest rate after their index 

DV arrest and within the study period is 33 percent. 

The sensitivity of the test is 0.79. Specifically, the probability that a predicted 

subsequent arrest actually occurred is 79 percent, (11/14). The specificity of the test is 

0.86. That is, the absence of indications of risky behaviors correctly identified 86 percent 

of the men with no subsequent arrests in the study period, (25/29). The accuracy of the 

test is 0.84 (36/43). This simple 1.0-3.0 index has an empiric area under the ROC curve 

of 0.85; this qualifies as a good predictive test.2

There is a criminal justice literature which tests alternative risk management 

instruments with regard to predicting domestic violence recidivism and violent recidivism 

in general. The study instruments in this literature have the common characteristic of 

using the ROC/AUC measure to determine their predictive efficacy. The median 

ROC/AUC for the reviewed studies is 0.67. Polygraphy clearly appears to be useful in 

the risk management of high-risk domestic violence probationers. 

The study indicates that the enrollment of high-risk men in a FVIP does not deter 

the likelihood of a subsequent arrest for men who have underlying risky behaviors. This 

is an expected result given that FVIP programs do not deal with the range of risky 

behaviors associated with domestic violence; this range of risky behaviors is also 

associated with other criminal acts. 

This small study suggests that polygraphy can assist probation departments to 

monitor effectively the risky behaviors of domestic violence probationers who have an 

elevated risk of continued criminal behavior. The small sample of tested probationers 

militates against proof of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the evidence is intriguing, and in 

the expected direction given the outcome of earlier psychological and criminal justice 

research. In addition, the results do not heavily rely on demonstrating the validity of the 

interpretation of the recorded autonomic responses to the polygraph test, although the 

polygrapher’s interpretation of the results is an element of the predictive test. 

The Benefits of Polygraphy 

Polygraphy appears to have five benefits in the management of high-risk 

domestically violent men. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation ix
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

• Polygraphy appears to provide information that can support 

good prediction of near-term recidivism. 

• Standard polygraphy practice affords retesting every three to 

six months or longer to determine if habilitative interventions, 

ordered because of polygraphy test information, have reduced 

the probationer’s recidivism risk. 

• The pre-polygraph interview provides a broader range of 

information about criminogenic behaviors, than is provided by 

narrower tests such as urinanalysis. Probation, however, needs 

both tools. They are reinforcing. 

• The polygraph tool helps the probation officer and intervention 

facilitators to distinguish between the probationer’s 

contextually appropriate behavior, as exhibited during FVIP 

sessions or meetings with probation officers, and the 

probationer’s more closely held beliefs, feelings, and actions; 

i.e., it provides the officer or facilitator with the needed “bogus 

pipeline.” 

• Probation can integrate polygraph results, especially pre-test 

interview results and the polygrapher’s interpretation into 

protocols for the contingent management of these high-risk 

probationers.3 

Integrating Polygraphy and Probation 

The polygraph is not simply a stand-alone instrument. It is best when the criminal 

justice system integrates it into a reorganized probation system. Probation must support 

this improved risk management with swift accountability. Polygraphy, because it can be 

an effective method of monitoring probationer behavior, requires follow-up, otherwise 

the testing will simply demonstrate to the probationer that he can continue his behavior 

with impunity. 

For polygraphy to be an effective probation risk management tool, it is necessary 

that men whom the court has placed on probation comply with their sentence. Probation 

cannot give polygraph tests to men who do not appear. Probation, at its core, is a 

cooperative relationship between the probation officer and the probationer. Probation 

departments do not have sufficient enforcement capacity to prevent opportunistic 

defections from probation, and probationers, especially those criminals the court has 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation x
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

probated often, understand that the likelihood of arrest, upon defection, is modest. In this 

study, 46 percent of the high-risk domestic violence probationers in the cohort either did 

not meet with their probation officers or failed to enroll in a family violence program 

(FVIP) and then stopped complying with Probation. 

Although probation officers in DeKalb County have the power to arrest 

absconders, the Sheriff’s office usually makes the arrests based on a court-issued warrant 

or the police arrest the absconder during the initial investigation of another crime. The 

enforcement capacity in DeKalb County, as is generally true of probation, is such that the 

likelihood of arrest of a defecting probationer is modest. During the study period, the 

police or the Sheriff arrested 34 percent of the absconding men, and the median length of 

time between the probation infraction and the issuance of the warrant is 150 days. 

 Swift accountability, as this study illustrates, is difficult to accomplish. High-risk 

probationers, who fail to report to probation, fail to enroll and attend a FVIP, as well as 

those who attend their FVIP sessions, all need improved monitoring, although probation 

may require different tools to respond to the varieties of noncompliance. 

Targeted polygraphy applied to high-risk domestic violence criminals is likely to 

have its greatest effect in an agency with computerized administrative capacity, which 

rapidly identifies absconders, has support from a Sheriff that places priority on the swift 

arrest of these men, and has routine drug testing with certain consequences, whether it is 

a brief jail sentence, enrollment in a substance abuse program or both. 

In addition, a probation officer’s domestic violence caseload and training must be 

commensurate with the officer’s tasks. In a behavioral management demonstration, 

initiated in Maryland, labeled Proactive Community Supervision (PCS), the Maryland 

Department of Corrections, and Rehabilitation reduced the community supervision 

caseload to 55 from 100.4

Given the limited enforcement capacity of probation departments, limited 

administrative capacity, and the requirement of probationer cooperation, it is strategically 

important that probation identify high-risk probationers, target the management of their 

behavior, and apply the department’s enforcement capacity with celerity to respond to 

men who trespass beyond the boundaries of their probation. Such an enforcement 

strategy that focuses on the lesser number of high-risk domestic violence probations may 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation xi
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation xii

serve to warn other less risky probationers that the Probation Department is able to act 

swiftly and thus deter them from probation defection. 

Effective targeted use of polygraphy along with operational changes may 

result in more effective domestic violence community corrections programs. On 

the other hand, simply adding polygraphy to a probation department’s current 

domestic violence operations may be less rewarding. 

 

NOTES 

1

Kim English, Some thoughts about treatment efficacy and the polygraph, California Coalition on Sex 

Offending Newsletter, spring, n.d. 

2

 An ROC/AUC result of 0.50 is a null result, 60-70 is considered poor, 71-80 is fair, 81-90 is good, and 

91-1.00 is excellent 

3

 For a discussion of contingent management in the framework of community corrections see Faye S. 

Taxman, The Role of Community Supervision in Addressing Reentry from Jails, Urban Institute Reentry 

Roundtable, June 2006. 

4

 Faye Taxman. Op. cit. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

Introduction 

Researchers have concluded, with disappointment, that batterer intervention 

programs, as currently structured, have scant effect on the behavior of men convicted of 

domestic violence. (Babcock, J., et.al.) This is especially true for domestic violence 

perpetrators who have an elevated risk of repeat abuse. This study examines how the 

application of polygraphy could improve batterer habilitation. The study site is DeKalb 

County Georgia, an urban county east of Atlanta. 

Polygraphy is currently used by many therapists in the treatment of sex offenders. 

They often use polygraphy in their attempts to obtain needed accurate information about 

the offender’s sexual preferences. With this information, the therapist is better able to 

identify treatment needs and treatment effects.1 

Kim English, in a commentary on the utility of polygraph exams, writes that 

utilitarian polygraph exams often include sets of question that target a general area. Most 

of the examinees will provide extremely important information during the course of the 

examination and the post-test interview. The value of the post-conviction polygraph is 

the collection of information about dangerous behavior that otherwise would remain 

unknown, and then acting on this information before a new sex crime is committed. 

(English). 

 By analogy, the application of polygraphy to high-risk domestic violence 

probationers would similarly supply information that would otherwise remain unknown. 

Probation has very little knowledge whether domestic abuse or other proscribed 

behaviors are continuing while a man is on probation unless the victim reports it. 

Polygraphy could reduce the reporting burden on the victim, and increase the ability of 

the probation officer to make the probationer accountable for continued criminal 

behavior. 

Courts are reluctant, however, to accept polygraph results in judicial proceedings 

to determine guilt or innocence. The information that polygraphy provides may assist 

court agencies, however, in the management of high-risk domestic violence offenders and 

in the triaging of these domestic violence probationers to appropriate interventions. In 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 1
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

this application, polygraphy data made available to intervention facilitators and the 

probation officer can assist in the broader task of managing high-risk domestic violence 

offenders. 

Courts that order a domestic abuser to participate in an intervention usually limit 

their choice to a brief anger management program or a longer family violence program. 

This limited response fails to consider a probationer’s dynamic,1 risky behaviors that 

often underlie domestic violence recidivism as well as a range of other misdemeanors and 

felonies. That is, family violence programs have placed on them the burden of coping 

with men for whom the programs are not a sufficient instrument. Such a one-size fits all 

approach nullifies the program’s possible effectiveness. 

 Polygraphy may be an effective tool for the identification of behaviors that are 

predictive of criminal recidivism by high-risk domestic violence probationers. With this 

information, the monitoring of domestic violence probationers would improve and the 

courts and probation could target intervention programs that are responsive to the risky, 

criminogenic behaviors of these high-risk men. 

This study focuses on an examination of whether information gained from a postconviction polygraph is predictive of near-term subsequent offenses and is thus a useful 

risk management tool. Testing the likely risk management value of polygraphy is a 

significant first step in assessing polygraphy’s usefulness in community corrections to 

habilitate high-risk domestic violence offenders. Specifically, the objective of the 

polygraph is to gather information that researchers consider predictive of subsequent 

criminality. Prior to this study, researchers did not know whether using polygraphy to 

assist in the risk management of domestic violence offenders was anymore efficacious 

than tossing a coin. 

The Polygraph and its Interaction with Probation 

Probation is essentially voluntary; its success depends on the cooperation of the 

offender. Compliance is often a sometimes thing. The enforcement capacity of 

probation departments is insufficient to apply uniformly penalties to deter opportunistic 

defections and absconding. Knowing that polygraphy can enhance the interventions with 

these high-risk men requires probation to organize its domestic violence response in a 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 2
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

manner that provides the capacity to enforce the probationer’s compliance with court 

orders and to follow the habilitative regimens aimed at deterring their risky behaviors. 

Probation should support polygraphy targeted at high-risk abusers with a 

concentration of its limited domestic violence enforcement capacity on abusive men who 

present the greatest public safety problem. If the domestic violence criminal justice 

system fails to organize so that it can profit from the polygraph information and enhanced 

monitoring, then it simply signals to the offenders that they can continue to pursue their 

risky behaviors with impunity. If the courts and probation leave these behaviors 

unattended, the result will be continued recidivism by these men, despite the investment 

in polygraphy. Targeted enforcement efforts and increased information about 

probationer offending are essential to effective probation administration. Targeted 

enforcement, such as strict enforcement of violations by high-risk domestic violence 

probationers focuses probation’s limited enforcement capacity, and if monitoring and 

subsequent enforcement are effective, the increased compliance will allow the 

enforcement capacity to be managed over a larger number of probationers. (Kleiman) 

If polygraphy is to be useful as a risk management tool, integrated into probation 

department processes, then the criminal justice system must respond in a broad, 

complementary manner. The kinds of changes needed to complement the use of 

polygraphy in high-risk domestic violence require a description of the current domestic 

violence response in DeKalb County. This is a study of one county, but the county’s 

response to domestic violence is easily recognizable to criminal justice researchers and 

domestic violence personnel. The problems and opportunities for the application of 

polygraphy to high-risk domestic violence probationers in DeKalb County are general. 

The High-Risk Probationer Study Cohort 

To conduct this study, the DeKalb County State Court Probation Department 

identified 321 high-risk domestic violence probationers who had a mix of previous 

violent and nonviolent misdemeanor convictions. Probation allocated these men to a 

treatment family violence intervention site and 10 analogous control sites in DeKalb 

County. The treatment site facilitator, at the end of one month of psycho-educational 

classes, asked the enrolled men if they would volunteer for a polygraph test, and if they 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 3
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 4

continued their enrollment, asked them again to take a second polygraph at the end of the 

fourth month of classes. The treatment and control group samples balanced the 

demographic and criminal characteristics of the men in the treatment site and control sites 

across 11 demographic and criminal record variables. Forty-three of the 85 men assigned 

to the treatment site took at least one polygraph 

The Organization of the Study Text 

The remainder of the study is divided into four chapters: 

• A description of the several public and quasi-public agencies engaged in 

domestic violence criminal justice system in DeKalb County, Georgia. 

• A description of the study cohort and its probation behavior. 

• An analysis of the probation cohort behavior, the development of the 

predictive test of recidivism, and a comparison of the polygraphy test with 

previous efforts to develop similar tests. 

• Finally, a discussion of the study conclusions. 

 

NOTES 

1

Dynamic criminal issues, include continued criminal thinking, abuse of substances, poor self-control, 

continued associations with criminal peers, poor education, and poor work skills and attitudes. If 

unaddressed, these behaviors increase the risk of additional criminal acts. Dynamic behaviors contrast with 

static ones that are immutable, such as childhood experiences and age. For additional discussion see Faye 

Taxman, Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision plans, Federal Probation, Vol. 

70(2), 2006 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

CHAPTER 2: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN DEKALB COUNTY AND THE 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE 

The agencies central to the County’s response to domestic violence are the 

DeKalb County Police Department, the Office of the Solicitor, the local Magistrate’s 

Court, the State Court, the State Court Probation Department, the several Family 

Violence Intervention Programs (FVIP), and the Victim Liaisons who contract with the 

family violence programs. The following describes DeKalb County and the basic 

domestic violence processes of these agencies. 

The Place 

Dekalb County is a suburban county east of Atlanta, Georgia. Its population is 

723,602 with a population density of 2484.6 per square mile. The population is 55.6 

percent African–American, 38.9 percent White, and 9.0 percent are Hispanic. The 

median income is $44,965. Thirty-six percent have education to the Bachelor’s level or 

beyond. Table 1 compares the County with Georgia. The majority of Dekalb’s 

population is African-American, although Georgia’s population is not. The median 

household income is slightly higher than the State’s, which may reflect the higher 

percentage of the DeKalb population who have a BA degree or better. 

Table 1: The Place: Georgia and DeKalb County Demographics 

Item DeKalb County Georgia 

Population 723,602 9,363,941 

Density 2484.6 141.4 

Median household 

income 

$44,965 $42,679 

Percent education 

BA+ 

36.3 24.3 

Percent Black 55.6 29.8 

Percent White 38.9 66.1 

Percent Hispanic 9.0 7.1 

Source: U. S. Census State and County Quick Facts 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 5
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

The Police 

The cohort of high-risk domestically violent men in this study is the precipitate of 

a local social process. It is a police-Solicitor-State Court generated sample. It is unlikely 

that a community-based sample of high-risk domestic abusers would result in the same 

cohort. The men the police arrested, the Solicitor prosecuted, and the Court convicted are 

predominately African-American. Although 56 percent of the County’s population is 

African-American, they are 94 percent of the men in the high-risk domestic violence 

probationer cohort. 

 A 911 call to the police is the usual beginning for the involvement of the criminal 

justice system in a domestic violence incident. Police service calls concerning domestic 

disputes are the single largest source of calls in the County after false alarms and car 

accidents. The police receive about 500 domestic violence calls per week of which about 

26 percent result in arrests and a police incident report, (n ≈130).1 This is a significantly 

lower rate than the nationally reported arrest rate of 36.4 percent (p=0.01). (Durose, et al) 

Police incident reports are a primary evidence document. For this study, reports 

were available for 40 percent of the men in the cohort. The DeKalb County police 

reports contain a narrative about the incident based on the statements of the parties 

involved and witnesses. A second sheet of the report contains a series of check-off boxes 

on the relationship of the primary aggressor and the victim, injuries, use of substances, 

child witnessing, the manner in which the officer identified the primary aggressor, the 

number of previous complaints, the existence of court orders, and the action that the 

police took. The narrative and the check-off boxes provide the officer’s view of the 

incident. 

 The police report narrative provides information on the level of severity of the 

violence. A severe incident involves biting, kicking, punching with a fist, using a gun or 

a knife, using a household article as a weapon, choking, burning, or a combination of 

these actions. The primary study author, using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), 

estimated that seventy-four percent of the assaults in which the police made an arrest 

were severe. These incidents involved actions such as battering the victim by dragging 

her by her hair; multiple punches in the face with a closed fist; throwing the victim down 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 6
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

and kicking her, pushing the victim down a flight of stairs or over a porch railing; 

choking the victim; and terroristic threats to kill the victim. 

The police reports indicate that the police observed injuries on 62 percent of the 

victims, although a large proportion declined emergency treatment. Only 25 percent of 

the women in the study’s victim survey accepted medical care. Sixty-two percent of the 

victims indicated they had made from one to five previous domestic violence service 

calls to the police. 

The Courts and the Solicitor 

DeKalb County has three levels of courts: the Magistrate’s Court, which issues 

protective orders and will issue warrants to victims on a probable cause basis, the State 

Court, which processes misdemeanor domestic violence cases, and the Superior Court, 

which processes felony cases. There is no domestic violence court, although two judges 

have recently started a WATCH program (Weighing Accountability Through 

Compliance Hearings), with a structure similar to a drug court, to review a small number 

of cases each month. The judges are elected. 

The Solicitor, also elected, with a staff of appointed assistant solicitors dedicated 

to domestic violence cases is the engine that drives the domestic violence court process 

and misdemeanor cases in general. Arraignment of the arrestees starts with posting a 

bond in Magistrate’s Court of about $2500.00, about $250.00 cash. For those who post 

bond, the Court attaches conditions and releases the men in two or three hours. The 

Court schedules the arraignments of these men for about three months in the future. If a 

man cannot afford bail, he remains in custody for about 10 days or less until arraignment 

on the “rocket” docket. The “rocket” docket is an effort by the State Court to inject 

efficiency and Constitutional protections into the arraignment process. 

 At arraignment, the court, on the advice of the Solicitor, may dismiss the case 

because of a lack of evidence to support the allegations. In cases that the Solicitor wishes 

to pursue, the perpetrator can plead guilty, waive certain rights, and meet to negotiate 

with an Assistant Solicitor, or plead not guilty and request a public defender. He may 

also, though infrequently, seek a private attorney. The arraignment proceedings are brief 

and many cases are disposed at arraignment or shortly after the defendant meets with an 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 7
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Assistant Solicitor. The bases of the Solicitor’s case are 911 calls, the police report, 

recorded signs of struggle, emergency medical service reports, adult witnesses, and child 

witnesses, evidence of drug or alcohol involvement, or previous assault convictions. The 

record of previous assaults and alcohol and drug involvement affects the level of the 

Court’s sanction and recommendations for treatment. 

 The median length of time from arrest to conviction is 83 days (2.75 months). 

The length of time to case disposition is relatively brief because the defendant and the 

Solicitor often settle the case at arraignment or shortly thereafter.2

 This time to 

disposition may reflect the relatively modest resources available to the bulk of domestic 

violence defendants. 

 In the Solicitor’s view, many of the men are chronically criminal. The police 

may have arrested them numerous times before the Solicitor is able to obtain a 

conviction. Despite the Solicitor’s prosecutorial powers, an Assistant Solicitor may hold 

a weak hand because the collected evidence is deficient or the victim recants out of fear 

or financial need, or expressed remorse.3

 In these cases, the Solicitor asks the court to 

divert the case, dispose of it with a consent hold, or drops the prosecution. To strengthen 

her hand the Solicitor may choose to treat the case concurrently with other open domestic 

violence cases against the perpetrator. The victim may agree to treat multiple cases 

concurrently for reasons of safety. Concurrency may facilitate plea bargaining and more 

punishment or avoid a difficult jury trial. In the court’s view, the need to clear the 

backlog is an important criterion. 

The Solicitor may try to enhance, or threaten to enhance, a case to a felony. 

Enhancing the case to a felony transfers the case to the District Attorney and removes it 

from the Solicitor’s caseload. A previous conviction for Family Violence Battery (FVB) 

justifies a felony charge. Violation of a temporary protection order may be aggravated 

stalking—a felony. Substantial injury will make a domestic violence incident an 

aggravated assault felony. The Solicitor may consider a charge of aggravated assault as 

attempted murder. 

It is the Solicitor’s policy decision as to whether domestic violence is a 

prosecutorial priority. The Solicitor, who was in office until the November 2006 

election, single-mindedly prosecuted domestic violence cases. The Solicitor was 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 8
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

defeated for re-election and replaced by a Solicitor, who announced an intension to divert 

a larger number of domestic violence cases. The court can still mandate men in a 

diversion program to attend a family violence program, but the diversion disposition does 

not count as a conviction.4

 This extends the time until a recidivist batterer’s abusive 

behavior is eligible for enhancement to a felony. A second effect is to reduce the large 

domestic violence caseload of the State Court Probation Department. 

If a State Court judge convicts a man of domestic abuse, the usual sentence is 12 

months of probation and attendance at a 24-week (36 hours) Family Violence 

Intervention Program (FVIP). If the perpetrator completes the FVIP, the Court specifies 

that he will graduate to non-reporting probation status. It is infrequent that the court 

incarcerates a man or requires him to attend treatment for substance abuse or parenting 

classes. The Court’s concern is that jail or the cost of additional treatment, which the 

defendant shoulders, will complicate matters. The judges consider that many of the 

defendants, marginally attached to society and the economy, are unable to afford the 

costs of treatment beyond the FVIP, and they will violate these probation conditions, 

requiring further review by the Court. Some judges project that incarcerating a defendant 

will result in unemployment and further economic hardship with no expected gain.5

 

State Court judges consider that attendance at a FVIP is the appropriate direct respon

domestic violence. 

se to 

State Court Probation Department 

A second agent of the State Court is the State Court Probation Department. The 

Probation Department supervises misdemeanants placed on probation by the State Court. 

The Department has four probation officers who supervise only domestic violence 

probationers. Probationers are required to report to their probation officers once a month 

for a meeting that lasts about 10 minutes. The probation caseloads are large. Each 

officer has an active caseload of about 250 men. The heavy caseload and a manual 

record system forces a narrowing of the probation officer’s activities. Loose-leaf binders 

are the repository for the records. The County has issued a solicitation for the 

development of a computerized record system, but until it is developed and implemented, 

Probation has no computer-based administrative record system. The Officers do have 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 9
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

access to a computerized criminal history system, although they do not normally review a 

probationer’s criminal history. 

The State, unfortunately does not systematically audit the criminal history file and 

there is a significant error rate insofar as a court clerk may not enter an arrest or the 

disposition of a case. The criminal history file failed to contain records of some of the 

convictions for which men were on probation in DeKalb County. In the study’s 

polygraph tests, men admitted to arrests that were not in the criminal history. Crimes 

committed in other counties may appear in the history only after considerable delay. 

When probation officers ask men on probation if they have been arrested since their last 

meeting, the probationer is unlikely to report truthfully. These delays, errors, and lack of 

truthful reporting reduce the officer’s ability to enforce accountability. 

Probation officers do not undertake a formal risk assessment, or routinely require 

drug tests. None of the probation officers has attended a FVIP session, and a separate 

field staff makes out-of-office visits. There is no Georgia law that prohibits a man 

convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun, although it is a federal violation. 

There is no uniform procedure for probationers to turn in a gun to avoid violation of 

federal law, although police place weapons seized at an incident site in the police 

evidence locker. 

Probation expects that new probationers will meet with their probation officer 

within 10 days of their sentencing. Among the topics discussed with the probationer at 

the initial meeting are the probation officer’s expectations about the probationer’s 

behavior, the man’s current employment and income, the consequences of trespassing on 

his conditions of probation, assignment to a FVIP and the monthly fees assessed for 

probation services and the weekly FVIP charges. The probation officer directs the 

probationer to contact the agreed upon FVIP for an evaluation and a program orientation. 

Following evaluation and orientation, the probationer begins his 24 weeks of attendance. 

The median time to FVIP enrollment from the initial meeting with the probation 

officer is 80 days. If the probationer follows a regimen of contacting his probation 

officer and promptly enrolling in a FVIP, he can graduate to non-reporting probation 

status in about 7 months. Unfortunately, a minority of the high-risk men are able to 

negotiate this path. The men’s anti-social behavior makes the process more complicated. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 10
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Nearly half of the 321 men (n=147; 46 percent) did not report to either probation or enroll 

in their assigned FVIP program. Given that FVIP assignments follow closely on their 

initial meetings with their probation officer, it is reasonable to state that nearly one-half 

of the probationers reject the Court’s sentence. 

Probation requests an arrest warrant from State Court for men the Department is 

unable to engage in the probation process. The median additional time from the violation 

of an order to meet with probation or failure to enroll in a FVIP and the issuance of a 

warrant is 150 days (5 months). The DeKalb County Sheriff is responsible for serving 

the warrant and making the arrest. The police also make arrests based on the discovery 

of an outstanding warrant during a traffic stop or subsequent arrest. During the study 

period, the Sheriff or police arrested 34 percent of the men for whom the court had issued 

a warrant. 

Fifty-four percent (n=174) of the men reported to their probation officer and 

enrolled in a FVIP. Seventy-two percent of the men who enroll in a FVIP complete the 

program. The cohort’s completion rate for the family violence program is about 39 

percent. Although 72 percent of the men who enrolled in a FVIP completed, the outcome 

was a modest 39 percent completion rate for the high-risk men, (0.54*0.72=0.39), 

because only 54 percent of the men had enrolled. These operational results are common, 

given that participation in probation is essentially voluntary and the likelihood of rapid 

re-arrest and a jail sentence is modest. 

The Family Violence Intervention Program 

The Family Violence Intervention Program (FVIP) is the major instrument the 

State Court uses to attempt batterer habilitation. The Georgia Commission on Family 

Violence regulates the structure of the FVIPs with regard to facilitator qualifications, 

curriculum, program length, class size, record keeping, and the appropriate conduct of the 

probationer during class. In general, the programs follow the Duluth power and control 

model. 

FVIPs do intake evaluations of the probationers to review his history of family 

violence, family dysfunction, and criminal activity. Formal screening for drug use, 

mental illness, and a review of the police report are not usual. It is the view of the local 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 11
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

domestic violence leadership and victim advocates that drug and alcohol use does not 

excuse domestic violence. Mental illness is also not an excuse for domestic violence. 

The focus of the FVIP sessions is on the issues of power and control in relationships with 

intimates. Facilitators spend little or no time on emotional illness or substance abuse 

either in the intake process or in the FVIP sessions themselves. Although many of the 

facilitators have experience in selected aspects of emotional illness and substances abuse, 

it is not part of the curriculum. Addressing these conditions, which many clinicians 

consider an illness, conflicts with the view held by many domestic violence professionals 

that domestic violence is learned and volitional. The Georgia Commission on Family 

Violence, as a policy, does not consider that emotional illness and substance abuse are 

causes of domestic violence. 

The Abusers 

The typical high-risk domestic violence probationer in DeKalb County―the focus 

of this study―is a young, unmarried, marginally employed, African-American, with a 

high school education, and is the father of one or more children. The median age of the 

probated men is 34, 68 percent are unmarried, separated or divorced, 25 percent are 

unemployed or employed part-time, 94 percent are African-American, 79 percent have a 

GED or high school education, and 71 percent have at least one child. Some have 

reasonable attachment to the community; i.e. they are married, have children, are 

employed, and have a better than high school education. 

Others have been to jail several times, have serious untreated substance abuse 

problems, and have themselves suffered serious and continued abuse. The criminal 

records of the men are extensive with multiple arrests. The average length of their 

criminal activity, up to the date of their index arrest for domestic violence, is 12.6 years 

(the median length is 12.1 years). 

The study divided the men’s criminal history into eight categories (assault, 

domestic assault, sexual assault, property crimes, substance abuse, larceny, major motor 

vehicle, and miscellaneous misdemeanors.) Eighty-five percent had a criminal record in 

2 or more categories. Fifty-five percent had a previous arrest for substance abuse 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 12
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

(alcohol or illegal drugs). Seventy-nine percent had more than one previous arrest for 

domestic violence. 

The men’s conversations during FVIP group sessions did not give any hint of 

their extensive criminal records. During these sessions, the men characteristically were 

civil, polite, and engaged in the discussion; they minimized their abusive behavior. They 

manage their image. Typically, at “check-in” many of them said the “week went fine, no 

problems, or we had one little argument but we sat down and talked it out.” None ever 

said that the week went poorly. The men do not consider verbal taunting, threats or 

destroying property or hitting back in self-defense as abusive―initiating the hitting of an 

intimate partner is. 

Many of the men are themselves victims of abuse or live in an edgy world of 

anger and confrontation. They minimize any abuse that has happened to them. It is 

never an excuse. Difficulties with alcohol and drug abuse are never excuses, an ironic 

point of agreement with many domestic violence professionals. Their relationships 

provide little reciprocity. Often the men said that they had been on their own from an 

early age and they did not expect help from anyone. They viewed this as appropriate 

self-reliance. They viewed violence as an acceptable way to respond to a perceived insult 

from either a man or a woman. Thirty-four percent of the men had non-domestic assault 

arrests. To buttress their point they often related stories of witnessing violence as 

children, which they interpreted as an acceptable parental response. “If my momma or 

daddy was that angry then something must have been done to them to make them do that 

thing.” Translation: the victim’s behavior caused the anger, and the victim received a 

deserved punishment.6

 Those who are near completion of the program often claim that 

they will miss the group and that the sessions have reformed them. As noted, seventy 

nine percent of the cohort had more than one domestic violence conviction. They will 

likely return. 

The Victims 

Part of the regulatory response to domestic violence incidents in DeKalb County 

is a victim telephone interview conducted by a Victim Liaison who contracts with the 

family violence intervention program sites for this purpose. The victim survey (See 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 13
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Appendix A: The Victim Survey) queries victims about their history of abuse with the 

convicted man in the study cohort. The survey covers the period of the abuse and its 

frequency, the types of emotional or physical abuse, whether the abuser is chronically 

intoxicated, his ownership of guns, child abuse, child witnessing, and the abuser’s 

controlling behaviors. 

After the abuser enrolls in the FVIP, the FVIP facilitator provides victim contact 

information to the Liaison. After interviewing the victim about the abuse she sustained, 

the Liaison provides contact information for social services, and discusses safety 

planning. The Liaison makes a repeat contact with the victim if a FVIP facilitator 

interprets comments by a probationer to indicate imminent victim danger or when the 

legal status of the abuser changes, such as when he completes the FVIP, or the FVIP 

terminates him from the program. All of the Liaison’s conversations with the victim are 

confidential. 

The only change in this process, during the project, was a codification of the 

telephone questionnaire that the Liaison administered to collect data about the victim’s 

abuse history with the perpetrator. Although the Victim Liaison intends her interview to 

be a faithful history of the perpetrator’s abuse, the respondents are likely to manage their 

images and in addition suffer lapses in recall.7 

The current Victim Liaison interview process limited the opportunity for the 

Liaison to contact the victim and provide support. The FVIP facilitator initiates contact 

with the Liaison when the probationer enrolls and supplies the facilitator with 

background information and victim contact information.8

 Because approximately fifty 

percent of the men reject their sentence and do not enroll in a FVIP, the Liaison never 

contacts these victims. The lives of high-risk abusers (and their partners) are often 

unstable and contact information is often out-of-date before the perpetrator enrolls in a 

FVIP. The result is that victim safety planning is long delayed or never delivered. 

Finally, the Liaison is dependent on the FVIP facilitator for notification and naming of 

the batterer. The facilitator may neglect this step if the man enrolls but fails to attend 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 14
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Table 2: Survey Response Rate and Victim Liaison Operations Contact Rate 

Item Survey Response 

(N)=321 

Liaison 

Operations 

Contact (N)=321 

Completes 51 51 

Refusals 10 10 

Not qualified/screened out 

(failure to enroll in FVIP, or 

family abuse not IPV) 161 161 

Deficient contact information 

(no FVIP referral or inadequate 

referral information) 99 99 

Response rates (%) 66* 19** 

*Survey response rate = completes/[(completes)+(( not contacted + refused) x 

(completes/(completes + not qualified))]

** Liaison operations contact rate = completes+ refused/ (completes + refused + not qualified + 

deficient contact information) 

class or fails to pay his evaluation fee. The resulting operational response rate is low. 

(See Table 2.) The Liaison’s operational contact rate is less than 20 percent while the 

formally measured survey response rate is 66 percent; this is reasonable for a vulnerable 

population. 

The Victim Survey (Table 3) tabulates the abusive actions that are the precipitates 

of the behaviors discussed by the men in the FVIPs. The survey provides a sketch of the 

victim’s abuse or the threat of abuse, which is a constant in her life. These responses are 

from victims who carried the criminal process to conclusion, some of them multiple 

times. Given that nationally only about 3.5 percent of physical assaults reported to police 

result in a conviction, (Durose, et al)response of these victims may be different from the 

responses of a community-based sample of abused women. 

The respondents indicate high levels of emotional abuse, in addition to their 

physical abuse. Sixty-five percent of the victims stated that the abuser tried to justify his 

violence, 75 percent blamed her for the violence, and 76 percent accused the victims of 

having sexual affairs. Verbal criticism, (64 percent), control over who they can see (56 

percent) routinely occurred. Forty-five percent of the abusers have threatened or 

attempted murder or suicide. The children have often witnessed violence (60 percent), 

and the abuser is often intoxicated (51 percent). 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 15
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Table 3: Victim Survey Responses 

Question 

Number Question 

Percent 

“Yes” 

Response 

Number of 

“Yes’ 

Responses 

Total 

Response

s 

Physical Violence 

5 

Did you contact police when first abused? 41 21 51 

6 Did you contact police when abused again? 52 23 44 

7 Did you need medical care? 25 13 51 

8 Did you leave to find somewhere safe? 56 28 50 

9 Did your partner try to justify his violence? 65 33 51 

10 Did he blame you for the violence? 75 38 51 

11 Are there ways that he thought he was the victim? 75 38 51 

12 Has the violence gotten worse? 51 26 51 

13 Does he have any guns? 12 6 49 

14 Has he used weapons to abuse you? 24 12 51 

15 Has he threatened you or attempted suicide or 

murder? 

45 23 51 

16 Do you have a restraining order? 22 11 49 

Emotional Violence 

17 Does he criticize or put you down? 64 32 50 

18 Does he call you names? 75 38 51 

19 Does he control the money? 29 15 51 

20 Does he control who you can see or have as friends? 56 29 51 

21 Does he act jealous or accuse you of affairs? 76 39 51 

22 Is he often intoxicated? 51 26 51 

23 Has he had an affair or affairs? 49 21 43 

24 Have you had forced sex? 16 8 51 

25 Does he use the children to manipulate or spy on you? 39 9 23 

26 Have the children witnessed violence? 60 15 25 

27 Has he threatened to take the children away? 27 6 22 

28 Does he tell you are a bad parent? 37 8 25 

29 Has he threatened to harm them? 4 1 25 

30 Has he ever harmed or abused them? 12 3 25 

31 Was the Department of Family and Social Services 

involved? 

8 2 25 

32 Have you reason to suspect he sexually abused 

children? 

0 0 24 

33 If you have separated, does he use visitation to 

threaten or manipulate you? 

7 1 15 

34 Does he pass messages to you through the children? 6 1 16 

35 If you are separated or divorced does he pay child 

support as ordered? 

14 2 14 

36 Has he ever admitted to having a drinking or drug 

problem? 

31 14 45 

36a Has he ever been in treatment? 23 10 44 

37 Have you and he ever been to couples counseling? 16 8 51 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 16
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Few respondents, however, reported forced sex. Only 15 percent of the victims 

responded positively to the statement that their intimate partner “ever forced or pressured 

you to have sex or perform sexual acts.” The victim generally denied that the abuser 

harmed or abused the children or threatened to take the children. The reader must keep in 

mind that the responses to these questions depended on the victim’s interpretation of the 

questions. Only 12 percent indicated that the abuser ever harmed or abused the children. 

This low level of reported abuse may be due to the victim’s definition of child abuse. 

Police reports, study polygraph reports on men with children and comments in FVIP 

sessions by these men often noted corporal punishment of the children. Researchers have 

documented the coexistence of child abuse and domestic abuse. ((Anne E. Appel, George 

W. Holden) Anne Appel and George Holden, using a conservative definition found a 

median co-occurrence rate of 40 percent. 

Comparison of Victim Responses and Police Report Information 

The quality of the information produced by the domestic violence criminal justice 

process, as illustrated by DeKalb County, is cautionary. Comparison of information from 

the victim survey and the police report show a distinct lack of consistency or agreement. 

There are thirty-five incident reports for which there are also victim responses. There 

was high disagreement between reports to the Victim Liaison about police service calls 

and their statements to the police about previous service calls; the lack of agreement 

between the responses as measured by the kappa value was 0.17. Several victims 

indicated to the police officer that their intimate partner had abused them previously, but 

she had not called the police. There was also low agreement about the existence of a 

prior court order; the kappa was 0.17. Although 51 percent of the victims stated that their 

abuser is often intoxicated, the police reported, generally in the narrative, that 21 percent 

of the men were intoxicated at the time of their arrest. Again, there is little agreement 

between responses to the victim survey about the chronic intoxication of their abusers 

and police reports that the abuser was intoxicated at the time of arrest; the kappa was 

0.15. Because the police made only casual observations about sobriety and did not 

administer any tests, it is likely that the police seriously underreport substance 

involvement, even though intoxication during the incident evidence in which the Solicitor 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 17
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 18

is interested. Child witnessing, a concern to the Solicitor, is an offense indicated on the 

police report and asked in the victim survey. Sixty percent of the victims reported child 

witnessing to the Victim Liaison; the police reports included charges of cruelty to 

children (witnessing) in 39 percent of the reports; the agreement is a weak 0.10. In 45 

percent of the cases in which the police charged cruelty to children, the victim failed to 

report to the Victim Liaison that there had been child witnessing. The reader must keep 

in mind that the Liaison queried the victim after the incident. The telephone survey is a 

follow-up to the incident. 

The low levels of agreement between the police reports and the follow-up victim 

interview responses with regard to earlier assaults, intimate partner intoxication, the 

existence of court orders, and child witnessing inject a serious note of caution about the 

reliability of victim reports or police reports as a source of ground truth for the criminal 

justice system (D. Alex Heckert et al). Some of the difficulties in determining ground 

truth are because the police report describes an incident and the victim interview purports 

to be a follow-up history. There may also be differences in the victims’ understanding of 

a question or her motivation when answering a police officer’s question during a difficult 

incident in contrast to a nearly identical question asked by a sympathetic Liaison. Police 

reports and victim surveys, while they may contribute to the understanding of an incident 

are deficient sources to determine habilitation interventions or judge the likelihood of 

recidivism. The low levels of agreement between the responses to a police officer’s 

questions and those of the Victim Liaison strongly suggest the difficulty of determining 

the nature of events embedded in social contexts and narrated to listeners to satisfy the 

respondent’s current needs. As the study will demonstrate, responses obtained in 

polygraph tests are less likely to have the social distortions that are present in responses 

to police officers and victim liaisons. 

 

NOTES 

1

 Several officials confirm these numbers as the number of local domestic violence service calls and arrests. 2

In a study of a Massachusetts district court the median length of time from arraignment to the initial 

disposition was 196 days. Douglas Wilson and Andrew Klein, op. cit., p.23. 

3

 One interviewed Assistant Solicitor indicated that a standard defense practice was to ask the Court for 

extensions to give the defendant time to persuade the victim to express remorse and recant. She equated 

this to witness tampering. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

 4

 The Project did not interview the new Solicitor. As a result, the Project did not explore the motivation for 

this change. At the time of this writing, the criteria for diverting a case remained undecided. 5

 Interview with Chief Probation Officer State Court Probation. 

6

The acceptance of violence as an appropriate response to a perceived insult differs among regions of the 

country. Frequently researchers measure the southern and western regions of the United States as more 

violent than other regions. For example, see Richard E. Nisbett, Violence and U.S. Regional Culture,

American Psychologist, April 1993, p.441-449. 7

 The Victim Liaison, an experienced domestic violence professional, commented, during a review of her 

interviewing experience, that she suspected image management in the victim’s responses. 8

 This information is also available from the Solicitor much earlier in the process. Contracting with the 

Solicitor rather than the FVIP would lead to considerable improvement in the process. It would shorten the 

time to victim contact by the Victim Liaison, reduce the perpetrator’s control of the information and 

improve the quality and quantity of victim contact information. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 19
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY

In the 18-month period from December 2005 to May 2007, the DeKalb County 

State Court Probation Department identified 321 high-risk domestic violence 

probationers. Examination of men’s criminal histories is a standard method for 

identifying men with an elevated risk of repeat criminal activity. Based on earlier 

research, high-risk domestic violence perpetrators were men previously convicted 

multiple times for domestic assault and other assaults, substance abuse crimes, property 

crimes, larceny, major motor vehicle crimes, as well as other crimes (Wilson et al). 

Although domestic violence was the crime for which the court had recently 

convicted them, the criminal records of high-risk domestic violence probationers in 

DeKalb County contained a mix of earlier crimes including assaults, on men or women or 

both, substance abuse, property crimes, major motor vehicle crimes, larceny, and other 

crimes. The median length of their adult criminal career, at the time they entered the 

study, was 12.1 years. Ninety-four percent of the men were African-Americans, all 

living in DeKalb County, Georgia. The court sentenced all of the men to probation, 

usually a year, and mandated that they attend a 24-week family violence program. 

Each of the four domestic violence probation officers, under the supervision of 

the Chief Probation Officer, was responsible for identifying eligible high-risk men in her 

caseload. The Chief Probation Officer designated one probation officer to record the 

criminal history of the high-risk men. In addition, he audited the high-risk selections 

throughout the study. Probation drew these men from the flow of high-risk domestic 

violence probationers assigned to domestic violence probation officers by the first letter 

of the probationer’s surname, and who met with their probation officer, as well as the 

high-risk men who had been court ordered to report to probation, but did not. 

Probation assigned the identified men either to the treatment site family violence 

program or to one of 10 family violence program control sites within DeKalb County. 

The programs met state regulations designed to provide a uniform psycho-educational 

programs across all the sites. After attending four psycho-educational classes, the 

facilitator asked each probationer enrolled in the treatment site if they wanted to 

volunteer to take a polygraph as part of an NIJ study. Volunteers understood that no 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 20
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

consequences would stem from their responses. Men who completed one polygraph 

received a tuition reimbursement of $50.00. The facilitators in the control sites did not 

ask the attending probationers to participate. After attending 4 months of psychoeducational classes, the facilitator asked those probationers who were still attending and 

who had taken one polygraph, if they wanted to volunteer for a second polygraph. Men 

who completed a second polygraph received a tuition reimbursement of $75 dollars. 

Forty-nine percent of the men who enrolled in the in the treatment site agreed to 

volunteer and completed at least one polygraph (n=43). Twenty-three completed two 

polygraphs and 20 completed one polygraph. Men did not complete two polygraphs 

because either they failed to continue in the FVIP, or the study ended. 

The outcome of the allocation of men to the treatment site and the control sites is 

balanced. Logistic regressions could not distinguish among probationers whom 

Probation assigned to the treatment site or the control sites. Eleven independent 

demographic and criminal history variables had insignificant relationships (p>0.05) to the 

dependent treatment–control assignment variable.1 In addition, these same variables did 

not discriminate between men who completed at least one polygraph test and treatment 

site men who refused to volunteer, skipped the polygraph appointment, or enrolled in a 

control site FVIP and were eligible to volunteer for a polygraph test if the site had made 

it available. 

The use of the polygraph in the study demonstration is different from the usual 

purposes of a polygraph examination. The usual purposes of polygraph exams are to 

assess a person’s guilt or innocence in a specific crime, the participation by a person in an 

unauthorized disclosure (a leak or espionage) or past participation by a person in 

proscribed behaviors that would bar their employment in a particular job.2

 

The polygraph examination in this project asked questions about several of the 

probationer’s behaviors during probation. The purpose of the examination was to elicit 

from the probationer information about recent behaviors proscribed by his probationary 

sentence or behaviors that are illegal at any time. That is, the purpose of the examination 

was to elicit information about technical violations of probation and possible new crimes. 

The examination had three parts: 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 21
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

 a series of factual pretest questions: provide a description of the assault, 

whether he was continuing to have contact with the victim, his 

employment, court orders about restricted contact with the victim, stalking 

behavior, either by cell phone or physical presence, alcohol and drug 

usage, recent law enforcement contacts, ownership or handling of 

firearms, additional assaults, threats, or abusive contacts with others. 

 the polygraph test, which measured autonomic responses of the probationer to 

three or four questions about illegal drug use, alcohol consumption, abuse, and 

gun possession; and 

 a post-test inquiry in which the probationer was asked if he wanted to change 

any of his answers. 

The polygraph test, which recorded autonomic responses, focused on recent 

assaults, firearms possession or handling, and substance use. The polygrapher then 

interpreted the responses to the specific polygraph test questions on alcohol consumption, 

drug use, gun ownership and handling, and physical abuse. If the polygrapher’s 

interpretation of the autonomic responses is that the probationer has physiologically 

significant responses, then the polygrapher asks if the probationer would like to 

reconsider any of his responses. The procedure took about 90 minutes.3 

In this study of the utility of the polygraph exam with regard to domestic violence 

and recidivism, the pre-test part of the polygraph examination is most important because 

it provides the broadest range of information about the probationer’s continuing abuse 

and other proscribed behaviors. The probationer anticipates and is led to believe that the 

polygraph test provides a check on the veracity of his pre-exam responses. If the 

probationer admits in the preliminary questioning that he is continuing his abusive 

behavior or he is consuming illegal drugs, the autonomic responses will likely indicate 

that he is not being deceptive. The important information is that the probationer is 

continuing to abuse or consume drugs. If in the preliminary interview, the probationer 

denies further abuse, and the polygrapher interprets the autonomic response to exam 

questions as deceptive, then the polygrapher, when he confronts the probationer, expects 

him to admit this possible fabrication. 

In this study, with financial inducements, as well all assurances that no judicial 

proceedings would result from their response, 49 percent (n=43) of the treatment men 

volunteered for the polygraph and completed it. The responses revealed important 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 22
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

information about proscribed probationer behavior, and as discussed later in this study, 

may offer an effective test of the likelihood that a probationer will recidivate. 

The purpose of the polygraph is to determine if the probationers are continuing to 

participate in proscribed or illegal behaviors. The purpose is broader than the detection 

of deception; it also elicits information about risky behaviors that may be technical 

violations of probation or prodromal indicators of a future crime. Because the validity of 

the polygraph to determine deception correctly is uncertain,4 it is best to consider that a 

polygrapher’s assessment of deceptive behavior indicates the likelihood that the 

probationer has understated his risky or illegal behaviors. Similarly, the interpretation of 

a failure to measure deception, because of uncertainty, does not eliminate the likelihood 

that the probationer has understated his risky or illegal behaviors. The study previously 

noted that that police reports and victim reports are deficient. The offender wants to 

respond in the least damaging way, while the victim wants to respond in the most 

damaging way. As noted earlier, there is low correspondence between the views. 

The root rationale for employing polygraphy is the belief by probation officers, 

facilitators in family violence programs, and other domestic violence professionals that 

abusers continually deny their behavior or minimize its harm. Brief face-to-face 

interviews are a weak tool for discerning the truth about a probationer’s behavior. From 

the perspective of the abuser, he understands that probation officers, facilitators, and 

others do not consider that domestic abuse is socially acceptable. In their wish to be 

socially accepted (and to avoid punishment), they minimize and deny their behavior in an 

effort to mask their actual behavior. The probationer responds to the context of the 

interview. 

 Under these conditions, the polygraph may achieve useful results based on what 

psychologists call the “bogus pipeline” effect. Neal J. Roese and David Jamieson write 

that lines from Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poem, In Memoriam, inspired the term. 

Tennyson wrote: 

For words, like Nature, half reveal 

 And half conceal the Soul within 

Roese and Jamieson continue by writing, “Psychologists have long attempted to 

accurately measure individuals’ attitudes and opinions. Ideally, researchers desire a 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 23
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

direct pipeline to the soul, a method that somehow pierces strategic facades and bypasses 

the concealing words of which Tennyson wrote. Such a direct pipeline is clearly not 

possible but in their pioneering 1971 article, Edward Jones and Harold Sigall described a 

“bogus” pipeline (BPL) to the soul.” (Jones, E. E et al) Writing in the Psychological 

Bulletin they describe the bogus pipeline procedure. The procedure elicits significantly 

more truthful attitudes in situations where social desirability about attitudes and effects 

(i.e., subjects’ desire to express socially acceptable opinions) may mask actual behaviors. 

In psychological experiments, the procedure involves attaching subjects (via skin 

electrodes) to an ostensible physiological monitoring device and providing subjects with 

a “steering wheel" device to record their attitudes or behaviors. Psychologists tell the 

subjects in the experiment that the machine is a “lie detector." The measuring device is 

actually “electrical junk” and the purpose of the procedure is simply to convince subjects 

that their actual attitudes and behaviors are detectable. Results from a number of 

investigations, which have used the bogus pipeline procedure, (Quigley-Fernandez, B, et 

al)( Sigall, H et al) support the results of the experiment by Jones and Sigall. Several 

additional studies indicate that when subjects believe that their attitudes are detectable by 

a physiological measuring device, they more readily express their actual attitudes. That 

is, the bogus pipeline procedure yields more socially undesirable responses than when it 

is not used. For example, in Sigall and Page’s initial experiment, they found that subjects 

in the bogus pipeline condition would admit to negative attitudes about “Negroes." 

Importantly, control subjects in non-bogus pipeline conditions using paper-and-pencil 

tests did not reveal such attitudes. Later research has shown that this finding holds for 

attitudes toward handicapped individuals and for “confessing" to having prior knowledge 

about how to score well on a psychological experiment. 

Roese and Jamieson in their meta-analytic review of 31 studies found a significant 

mean BPL versus control condition effect across these studies, indicating that the BPL 

engendered real effects consistent with a reduction in socially desirable responding. 

The Roese and Jamieson meta-analysis examined studies that tested for a BPL effect with 

regard to opinions. When applied to questions of fact, a larger BPL effect is the result, as 

is the case in polygraph examinations. Several studies cited by Roese and Jamieson 

employ a BPL technique when trying to ascertain proscribed or illegal behaviors such as 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 24
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 25

substance use or child molesting. (Neal J. Roese, et al) Kelly Damphousse and his 

colleagues found in their recent NIJ study of the application of computerized voice stress 

analysis (VSA) software, a significant BPL effect with regard to arrestee’s admissions of 

recent drug use. (Damphousse) The authors write, “...the findings suggest strong support 

for the bogus pipeline effect of voice stress analysis programs on self-reports of criminal 

behavior. This finding is very important for law enforcement since it suggests that just 

using the VSA programs may be more likely to encourage suspects to be more truthful.” 

The bogus pipeline effect is not limited to polygraphy technology. 

 

. 

 

NOTES 

1

 The variables are probationer’s relationship to victim, employment status, education level, children in the 

household, ethnicity, age at index DV arrest, years of adult criminal record, a criminal record of violent 

assault(s), drug and alcohol arrest(s), property crime arrest(s), and at least one larceny arrest. 2

 Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation Technical Memorandum

Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983 provides a detailed discussion of the 

polygraphy process. 

3 Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation Technical Memorandum 

Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983 provides a detailed discussion of the 

administration of a polygraph. 

4

 Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing:.. after reviewing available field studies of polygraphy validity 

OTA concluded that polygraph testing is better than chance at differentiating deceptive from non-deceptive 

subjects in criminal investigations. Chapter 4, p.9. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND OUTCOME 

This section concentrates on the utility of the polygraph testing outcomes with regard 

to the management of high-risk domestic violence criminals. The basis of the polygraph’s 

predictive value, the study hypothesizes, is the combined result of the polygraph’s bogus 

pipeline effect and the evidence in the criminal justice literature of the relationship between 

criminal dynamic behaviors and criminal recidivism. 

The primary statistical measures used to examine the predictive value of the 

polygraph with regard to subsequent arrests are logistical analysis, the area under the 

Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (ROC/AUC), and the related measures of 

sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values. The discussion 

compares the polygraph data with the efforts to predict violent offender recidivism found in 

the criminal justice literature. The ROC/AUC and its related measures of sensitivity and 

specificity are useful statistical measures with which to compare the polygraph outcomes 

measured in this study with several other predictive tests of violent recidivism that criminal 

justice researchers have developed and applied ROC/AUC as their summary measure (See 

Table 7, p.39.) 

A useful diagnostic test needs to distinguish between a test’s true positives and true 

negative results. Because of uncertainty, most tests will also produce false positive and false 

negative results. The Receiver Operating Characteristic or Relative Operating Characteristic 

(ROC) graph maps the degree to which a test distinguishes true positives and true negatives. 

The standard ROC measure is the Area Under the Curve (AUC). The ROC graph maps the 

tradeoff between true positives and false positives. An AUC of 0.50 indicates that the test is 

no better than a coin toss in distinguishing between true positive and false positive results. 

Unity (1.0) indicates perfect discrimination. The benefit of the ROC is that it provides an 

easily understandable measure of the strength of the test. (Fawcett)(Swets) A rough guide 

for classifying the worth of a test based on its AUC is the traditional academic grade-point 

system. Thomas Tape suggests that a measure of 60-70 is poor, 71-80 is fair, 81-90 is good, 

and 91-1.00 is excellent. (Tape) The remaining discussion will use this scale in grading 

ROC/AUC outcomes. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 26
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

The Results 

As noted in the previous chapter, Probation made a balanced allocation of men to the 

treatment site and the control sites. The outcome of the probation process in terms of FVIP 

completion and failure rates and subsequent arrest rates are not statistically different between 

the treatment and control groups. The presence of the polygraph test did not have any 

outcome effects. This is an expected result given that neither the program facilitators nor 

probation applied the polygraph results to the habilitation of the men. 

The FVIP completion rate for treatment and control site men in terms of the number 

of men probated (n=321) was 39 percent; the failure rate either because the men did not 

report to probation, did not report to a FVIP, or did not complete the FVIP was 61 percent. 

The FVIP completion and failure rates of the men enrolled in the treatment and control 

groups are not significantly different. (Chi-square p=0.177) In addition, the FVIP 

completion and failure rates for polygraph takers and polygraph non-takers are not 

significantly different. (Chi-square p=0.41). (See Chart 1: Flow of Probation Cohort 

through Treat and Control Sites) 

Chart 1: Flow of Probation Cohort through Treatment & Control Sites 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Agree & Complete Polygraph

N=43

Pr=0.49

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=31

Pr=0.72

Fail FVIP

N=12

Pr=0.28

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=36

Pr=0.82

Fail FVIP

N=8

Pr=0.18

Fail to Agree or Complete 

Polygraph

N=44

Pr=0.51

Complete/ComplyFVIP

N=58

Pr=0.67

Fail FVIP

N=29

Pr=0.33

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.10 

0.04 

0.11 

0.02 

0.18 

0.09 

0.46 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Agree & Complete Polygraph

N=43

Pr=0.49

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=31

Pr=0.72

Fail FVIP

N=12

Pr=0.28

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=36

Pr=0.82

Fail FVIP

N=8

Pr=0.18

Fail to Agree or Complete 

Polygraph

N=44

Pr=0.51

Complete/ComplyFVIP

N=58

Pr=0.67

Fail FVIP

N=29

Pr=0.33

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.10 

0.04 

0.11 

0.02 

0.18 

0.09 

0.46 

The rate of post-index-DV arrest during the study period for the treatment and control 

men was 25 percent. There was no difference between the treatment and control groups, (chiBOTEC Analysis Corporation 27
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

square= 0.31). Twenty-five percent was the arrest rate for men who enrolled in the FVIP and 

completed it as it was for those men who did not report to probation, did not report to a FVIP 

or failed the FVIP after they enrolled. In addition, there was no difference in the arrest rate 

between men enrolled in a FVIP who either completed the program or failed, (Chisquare=0.88) (See Chart 2: Flow of Probation Cohort to Next Arrest During the Study 

Period) 

Chart 2: Flow of Probation Cohort to Next Arrest During the Study Period 

N=111, Pr=0.76

0.16 

0.01 

0.05 

0.14 

0.02 

0.07 

0.11 

0.35 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=67

Pr=0.77

Arrested

N=17, Pr=0.25

Not arrested

N=50, Pr=0.75

Arrested

N=4, Pr=0.20

Not arrested

N=16, Pr=0.80

Fail FVIP 

N=20

Pr=0.231

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.05 

Arrested

N=14

Pr=0.24

Not arrested

N=44, Pr=0.76

Arrested

N=8, Pr=0.27

Not arrested

N=21, Pr=0.73

0.04

N=58

Pr=0.67

N=29

Pr=0.33

Arrested

N=36, Pr=0.24

Not arrested

Complete/Comply FVIP

Fail FVIP 

N=111, Pr=0.76

0.16 

0.01 

0.05 

0.14 

0.02 

0.07 

0.11 

0.35 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=67

Pr=0.77

Arrested

N=17, Pr=0.25

Not arrested

N=50, Pr=0.75

Arrested

N=4, Pr=0.20

Not arrested

N=16, Pr=0.80

Fail FVIP 

N=20

Pr=0.231

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.05 

Arrested

N=14

Pr=0.24

Not arrested

N=44, Pr=0.76

Arrested

N=8, Pr=0.27

Not arrested

N=21, Pr=0.73

0.04

N=58

Pr=0.67

N=29

Pr=0.33

Arrested

N=36, Pr=0.24

Not arrested

Complete/Comply FVIP

Fail FVIP 

0.16 

0.01 

0.05 

0.14 

0.02 

0.07 

0.11 

0.35 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=67

Pr=0.77

Arrested

N=17, Pr=0.25

Not arrested

N=50, Pr=0.75

Arrested

N=4, Pr=0.20

Not arrested

N=16, Pr=0.80

Fail FVIP 

N=20

Pr=0.231

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.05 

Arrested

N=14

Pr=0.24

Not arrested

N=44, Pr=0.76

Arrested

N=8, Pr=0.27

Not arrested

N=21, Pr=0.73

0.04

N=58

Pr=0.67

N=29

Pr=0.33

Arrested

N=36, Pr=0.24

Not arrested

Complete/Comply FVIP

Fail FVIP 

Report to Probation 

& FVIP

N=174

Pr=0.54

Treatment

N=87

Pr=0.50

Complete/Comply FVIP

N=67

Pr=0.77

Arrested

N=17, Pr=0.25

Not arrested

N=50, Pr=0.75

Arrested

N=4, Pr=0.20

Not arrested

N=16, Pr=0.80

Fail FVIP 

N=20

Pr=0.231

Control 

N=87

Pr=0.50

Probated

N=321

Pr=1.00

Fail to Report to Probation or FVIP

N=147

Pr=0.46

0.05 

Arrested

N=14

Pr=0.24

Not arrested

N=44, Pr=0.76

Arrested

N=8, Pr=0.27

Not arrested

N=21, Pr=0.73

0.04

N=58

Pr=0.67

N=29

Pr=0.33

Arrested

N=36, Pr=0.24

Not arrested

Complete/Comply FVIP

Fail FVIP 

These results support the view that the behavior of the cohort of high-risk domestic 

violence probationers is homogeneous. In addition, the results provide evidence that the 

enrolled high-risk men in the control group and the enrolled high-risk men who did not take 

the polygraph in the treatment group had a mix of risky behaviors analogous to those men 

who took the polygraph. 

The family violence programs that enroll high-risk men appear to be ineffective with 

regard to reducing recidivism insofar as the arrest rate for men who did not report to 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 28
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

probation or to a FVIP had the same arrest rate – 25 percent. This result also suggests that 

probation is unable to deter absconding uniformly given that the arrest rate for men not 

reporting to probation or their family violence program is not different from the arrest rate 

for men enrolled in a family violence program. The arrest rate for absconding men should be 

significantly higher than for men who are nominally complying with the terms of their 

probation. 

It is clear that the criminal behavior of this cohort of high-risk probationers is 

undifferentiated by whether they failed to comply with their probation, or completed the 

family violence program. The pre-polygraph interview, on the other hand, provided useful 

information about the risk level presented by these high risk probationers. 

The utility of the of the polygraph test is with regard to what the men revealed in the 

pre-test interview and less importantly on how the polygrapher judged the men’s deceptive 

behavior, as would be expected from the bogus pipeline effect. The accuracy of the 

polygrapher’s judgment is important insofar as the examined abuser knows that the 

polygrapher will render a judgment at the end of the test and a polygrapher’s judgment of 

deception contributed to the diagnostic value of the polygraph. 

Probationers in the pre-polygraph interview admitted to engagement in a range of 

proscribed behaviors and probation violations. (See Table 4: Probation Violations.) Eightyone percent, as determined by their polygraph pre-test responses, violated conditions of their 

probation. Specifically, 62 percent admitted that they recently used intoxicating drugs, 30 

percent engaged in abusive behavior, 27 percent violated no contact orders, and 11 percent 

owned firearms. The court issued warrants for probation violations for 23 percent of the 

men. These warrants were primarily for process violation, such as absence from the FVIP 

program, failure to meet with their probation officer, and failure to pay the required fees. 

The study classified as risky three selected behaviors revealed by the probationers, as well as 

whether the polygrapher judged that the probationer was deceptive in his answers. 

 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 29
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Table 4: Probation Violations Based On Pre-Polygraph Interview 

Reasons Percent 

Drug use 62 

Abuse 30 

Illegal contact 27 

Firearm possession 11 

Probation violations (determined by polygraph) 81 

Court determined Probation violations 23 

Additional arrests* 33 

Polygraph results interpreted as deceptive 37 

*All arrests based on criminal record search and polygraph results.

That is, the probationer, in addition to his risky life style choices, chose to answer the 

polygrapher’s questions in a risky manner. Specifically, these behaviors were 

• illegal drug use other than marijuana, 

• the possession, or handling of firearms, 

• involvement in additional physical abuse, or notable verbally abusive 

arguments with an intimate partner or other men, and 

• responded to the pre-polygraph questions in a manner that the polygrapher 

judged to be deceptive. 

These risky behaviors are extra-marginal insofar as the men who completed at least 

one polygraph consume intoxicating substances at a high rate. These risky behaviors of 

illegal drug use other than marijuana, the possession, or handling of firearms, involvement in 

additional physical abuse, and deceptive polygraph responses are in addition to their 

widespread use of intoxicants. 

A review of the men’s criminal history, the victim survey, the police reports, and the 

polygraph results indicated that 88 percent of the men had excessive rates of consumption. 

These men had one or more of the following indications of excessive use. They had one or 

more arrests for intoxication or possession of illegal drugs. The victim reported to the Victim 

Liaison that her abuser was often intoxicated. The police report of the domestic violence 

incident indicated that the abuser was intoxicated. Finally, the probationer reported during 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 30
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

the pre-polygraph interview that he consumed illegal drugs, or drank heavily, although 

qualifying it as within his control, or occasionally acknowledging, “He had a problem.” 

The pre-polygraph interview provided data about proscribed probationary behaviors, 

which were predictive with regard to men whom the police subsequently arrested. Each of 

the risky behaviors was significantly predictive of a subsequent arrest during the study 

period. (See Table 5: Risky Behaviors Indicated in Pretest polygraph Interview and the

Polygrapher’s Interpretation of the Probationer’s Responses) The p-value for firearm 

possession and handling was 0.08. It was included because of its prominence in the fatality 

literature.(Campbell) The other risky behaviors in bivariate logits were significant at a pvalue of 0.05 or less. Overall, participation in any of these risky behaviors significantly 

increased a probationer’s likelihood of arrest for a subsequent crime. The odds ratio for a 

subsequent arrest during the study period if the men engaged in any of the risky behaviors 

was 5.42, (p-value 0.024).

Table 5: Risky Behavior Indicated in Polygraph Pre-test Interview and the Polygrapher’s 

Interpretation of the Probationer’s Responses

In this study, engaging in fewer risky behaviors reduced the likelihood of a 

subsequent arrest. Only 11 percent of the men with 0-1 risky behaviors had a subsequent 

arrest, regardless of whether they were married, unmarried, separated, or divorced. 

The extra-marginal risky behaviors predicted subsequent arrests within the study 

period. In this test, the grade for 0-1 risky behaviors is 1.0; the grade for 2-3 risky behaviors 

is 2.0; the grade for illegal drug consumption other than marijuana and, at the same time, 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 31
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

giving answers that the polygrapher judged as deceptive is 3.0. A grade greater than 1.0 

indicates an elevated likelihood of recidivism. 

Table 6 indicates the distribution of scores and the number of subsequent arrests. The 

arrest count includes those found in the men’s criminal history, which were subsequent to 

their index DV arrest, and additional subsequent arrests the men admitted in the prepolygraph interview. Their subsequent arrest rate within the study period is 33 percent 

including those additional arrests while they were on probation, admitted to during the pretest interview, but not recorded in the Georgia criminal history. 

Table 6: Risky Behavior Thresholds and Subsequent Arrests 

Risky 

behavior 

threshold 

Number of 

risky 

behaviors 

Number of 

high-risk 

probationers 

Number 

with 

subsequent 

arrests 

Percent of 

probationers within 

a risky behavior 

threshold with a 

subsequent arrest 

1.0 0-1 28 3 11 

2.0 2-3 9 5 55 

3.0 drug use> 

marijuana plus 

deceptive 

responses 

6 6 100 

Total 43 14 33 

The sensitivity of the test is 0.79. Specifically, the probability that a predicted subsequent 

arrest actually happened is 0.79, (11/14). The specificity of the test is 0.86. That is, the 

absence of indications of elevated risky behaviors correctly identified 86 percent of the men 

with no subsequent arrests in the study period, (25/29). The accuracy of the test, the number 

true positives and true negatives identified, is 0.84 (36/43). This simple index has an empiric 

ROC area of 0.85; this qualifies it as a good test.1 The 0.95 confidence interval for 

ROC/AUC is 0.71-0.94, p=0.0001. The power of the sample for 43 high-risk probationers is 

0.80 with an alpha of 0.05. Chart 3: Indications of Risky Behavior and Subsequent Arrests 

Based on Polygraph Responses, illustrates the outcomes discussed here. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 32
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Chart 3: Indications of Risky Behavior and Subsequent Arrests Based on 

Polygraph Response 

 Subsequent Subsequent 

Arrest

Yes No

Yes

No

15

28

11

3

4

25

14 29

Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.85) Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.85)

Positive Predictive Positive Predictive 

Value 

11/15=0.73 11/15=0.73

Positive Predictive Positive Predictive 

Value

25/28=0.89 25/28=0.89

Risk-Taking 

Behavior Behavior

Sensitivity Sensitivity

11/14=0.79 11/14=0.79

Specificity Specificity

25/29=0.86 25/29=0.86

Subsequent Subsequent 

Arrest

Yes No

Yes

No

15

28

11

3

4

25

14 29

Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.85) Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.85)

Positive Predictive Positive Predictive 

Value 

11/15=0.73 11/15=0.73

Positive Predictive Positive Predictive 

Value

25/28=0.89 25/28=0.89

Risk-Taking 

Behavior Behavior

Sensitivity Sensitivity

11/14=0.79 11/14=0.79

Specificity Specificity

25/29=0.86 25/29=0.86

As noted, the study condensed the polygraph pre-test information and the 

polygrapher’s judgment about deceptiveness into a three-point scale. The first two points of 

the scale rely on a simple count of four behaviors: (1) drug use other than marijuana; (2) 

continued abuse of adults and children; (3) firearm ownership or handling; and (4) a 

deceptive polygraph test result as judged by the polygrapher. The third point on the scale is a 

combination of admitted drug use other than marijuana, plus a deceptive response to the 

polygraph questions. 

The accuracy of the test, the number of true positives and the number of true 

negatives identified, was 84 percent (36/43). If the scale omitted deception as an ingredient, 

the accuracy of the test is 74 percent (32/43). Although this is not a significant difference in 

this small study sample, a difference of this size would be significant in a larger ongoing risk 

management program. Thus, although the pre-polygraph test based on the bogus pipeline 

effect is critically important, the polygrapher’s interpretation of the test is an important 

ingredient in an ongoing program.2

 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 33
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Previous Efforts to Predict Batterer Recidivism 

The literature that has developed around the problem of predicting batterer recidivism 

and violent recidivism of men on probation provides a comparative measure of the value of 

the study results described here. A diagnostic question arises as to what is a test for the 

reasonable sorting of domestic violence offenders between those who have an elevated risk 

of re-offense and those whose risk is not elevated, although not likely zero. 

At the local level, the police, the Solicitor, the courts, and probation routinely 

administer legal and extra-legal assessments of dangerousness and the risk of repeated 

offenses. The police determine whether to make an arrest. The Solicitor continues the 

assessment using several legal, extra-legal, and bureaucratic criteria, including the priority 

that the Solicitor affords domestic violence cases. The effect of the police and Solicitor’s 

assessment is to group cases between those the police decline to arrest or the Solicitor 

declines to pursue and cases where there is an arrest and the evidence of assault is sturdier or 

the crime more serious. This leaves the Solicitor room to plea bargain the case with a 

resultant disposition by the court that usually includes probation, no violent contact, and 

mandated attendance at a batterer treatment or anger management program. Probation may, 

after adjudication, further assess the dangerousness of the abuser, either formally or 

informally, and enhance the offender’s probation process. The outcome of this local policesolicitor-probation assessment process provides much of the grist for the formal assessments 

developed by criminal justice researchers. 

 There is agreement in the criminal justice literature that men the courts convict of 

violent crimes and have a history of previous crimes have an elevated risk of recidivating 

either violently or nonviolently. N. Zoe Hilton, Grant. T. Harris, and Marnie E. Rice write 

as follows with regard to the evidence of the common characteristics of men that criminal 

justice agencies prosecute for wife assault (Hilton et al) 

The growing research on predictors of wife assault shows that several static (i.e. 

fixed and/or unchanged by treatment) offender variables are correlated with 

recidivism, including age, duration of prior violence, substance abuse history, 

violence in family of origin, antisocial behavior including generalized aggression 

and nonviolent offenses, and a diagnosis of personality disorder. These variables 

also predict both general and violent recidivism among a wide variety of 

offenders...and there is little empirical evidence as to whether there are unique 

predictors of wife assault. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 34
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Loretta J. Stalans and her colleagues, who focused their research on violent 

recidivists, suggest, in contrast, that separate tests for generalized aggressors, family only 

aggressors, and non-family only aggressors may provide better accuracy in the prediction of 

violent recidivism. (Stalans et al) Stalans and her colleagues focused on recidivism during 

the probationary period. 

To assist the probationary process and allow probation to target its resources on the 

most serious cases, the probation agency needs proximal measures of dangerousness and 

recidivism. The method of assessment should focus on domestic violence criminals who are 

likely to fail within the probationary period. Typically, probation officers consider a lack of 

probationary compliance a technical violation, which returns the offender to court after his 

re-arrest. While noncompliance may be a significant predictor of recidivism, the response of 

probation and the courts does not normally provide an effective habilitative response. The 

usual response to the disruption of the probationary process is for the probation officers to 

request a warrant from the court for the man’s arrest. If the court complies, it is the task of 

the sheriff or police to arrest the absconder, which may not happen. When it does happen, 

the court’s response is uncertain. It may reinstate probation, levy a fine, or the court may 

revoke his probation, jail the offender for a brief period, and close the case. If the police 

arrest the absconder for a new crime, the probationary infraction is likely to be a minor 

concern. 

The specific concern during probation should be on reducing the dynamic behaviors 

that support violent criminal thinking, recidivism, and noncompliance. The task, then, is to 

develop a test based on dynamic needs so that the prediction of recidivism has an operational 

analog for deterrence and habilitation. 

Moreover, from a criminal justice viewpoint, the concern is for the offender to desist 

from all criminal behavior, not simply violent behavior, or domestic violence. Operationally, 

a probation department’s assessment of recidivism and violence can be initially achieved by 

distinguishing between men who have previous convictions for substance abuse (e.g. DUI, 

possession of illegal substances, possession with intent to distribute and other substance 

abuse crimes), and a range of violent crimes, including domestic violence. Although this is a 

rough way to identify high-risk offenders, there is evidence that it works. In a longitudinal 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 35
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

study of men arrested for domestic violence, those convicted of substance abuse and personal 

assault prior to their study index crime of domestic violence had a criminal career, of 

continued domestic assault and other crimes, with a median length of 20 years. Those 

abusers who did not have these prior crimes had a median criminal career of 11 years. 

(Wilson, et al) 

The data from this longitudinal study of batterers afforded the development of a 

diagnostic instrument with regard to the likelihood of the men’s recidivism during the next 9 

years using a three-point scale. The scale was 

1 = no crime against a person or arrest for substance abuse prior to their 

arrest for domestic abuse; 

2 = an arrest for either substance abuse or a crime against a person; 

3 = an arrest for both substance abuse and a crime against a person prior 

to their index domestic abuse arrest. 

The accuracy of this simple test was equivalent to more complex instruments found in 

the literature. Specifically, the fitted ROC Area Under the Curve (AUC) for repeat crime 

including DV = 0.77, the accuracy =0.77, and the sensitivity = 0.86. The specificity was 

0.54. This qualifies as a test with fair quality. When the abusive person is under court 

supervision, probation can intervene with men who are likely to recidivate prior to their 

recidivism without the lengthy court process required by a new arrest. On this point, Donald 

Dutton and P. Randall Kropp write: 

... (T) he evaluator should always consider the implications for risk 

management. The process of risk assessment should not conclude with a 

prediction of dangerousness or lethality ― this is only the beginning. The 

evaluator should then formulate a risk management plan aimed at specific risk 

assessment variables, particularly those dynamic variables that might change 

over time. Such a plan can be linked to the risk factors that are present and 

absent.... It is...the true goal of the evaluator is to prevent violence, not predict 

it (Italics added) 

If the courts or its agents target the risk management plan at specific risky behaviors 

that might change over time, then it is necessary to retest the probationer for the continuing 

presence of behaviors associated with and predictive of recidivism. Static variables by 

definition are immutable, and although they may be a contributing part of a test that predicts 

recidivism, a test that relies on dynamic variables is necessary to assess an abuser’s progress 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 36
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

toward desistance. What Donald Dutton and P. Randall Kropp implicitly suggest is a twostep process. The first step is a test that identifies those who are likely to recidivate. The 

second step is a diagnostic tool based on dynamic variables that are mutable over time but 

predict recidivism with acceptable accuracy. “Acceptable accuracy” is, of course, a matter of 

judgment. If this is achievable, then the domestic violence community, probation in 

particular, can integrate the treatment of these predictive dynamic traits into habilitative 

batterer programs. 

Static variables are prominent in predictive models of domestic violence recidivism 

described in the literature. The literature emphasizes, reasonably, the reworking of previous 

domestic violence research and in several cases validates the results on cohorts of abusers. 

Although researchers have made considerable effort to develop tests that identify likely 

domestic violence recidivists, probation officers cannot readily integrate them into the 

probation process, unlike the simple tests suggested in this study. 

The risk instruments found in the literature are not parsimonious in their data 

requirements or are they within the administrative capacity of most probation departments. 

To apply them, the instrument user needs to refer to multiple data sources, often located in 

weakly cooperating multiple agencies, as well as interviews with victims and abusers. For 

example, the Spousal Abuse Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) as described by Dutton and 

Kropp (Dutton, et al) includes interviews with the accused and the victims, standardized 

measures of physical and emotional abuse, measures of drug and alcohol abuse, and a review 

of collateral records such as police reports, criminal records and available psychological 

procedures or records. The result is that instrument users, if they attempt to use the 

instrument at all, are likely to compute scores based on incomplete data. Researchers have 

not generally tested the robustness of their instruments.3 In addition, this study suggests that 

reliance on police reports and testimony by perpetrators and victims are likely to be deficient 

sources of data. 

Finally, the domestic violence literature focuses on domestic violence recidivism, 

while the concern of probation officers is with all criminal activity. It is desirable that 

measures of recidivism are inclusive of other crimes rather than restricted to domestic abuse; 

especially because it is common for high-risk men who are domestically abusive to be 

generally criminal. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 37
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

The advantage of a parsimonious test is that local officials can calculate a useful 

index with data available within the agency and with available administrative capacity. 

Local data, used to determine risk initially, in will take into account the local context such as 

the responses of the police, the prosecutor, and the courts to domestic abuse and other crimes. 

Table 7 provides a comparison based on the ROC/AUC of several instruments 

designed to test for the likelihood of domestic violence re-abuse. The results, based on 

Thomas Tape’s assessment of predictive value, range from poor to fair; specifically from 

0.57 to 0.75. Edward Gondolf and D. Alex Heckert, however, develop a composite index, 

which relies, in part, on victim responses, with a ROC/AUC of 0.83. The median ROC for 

the nine risk instruments, excluding this study, in Table 7 is 0.67; overall a poor quality test 

result. 

A comparison of the polygraph results of this study and the recidivist predictive 

instruments in Table 7, suggest several points. The research of Stalens and her colleagues` 

illustrates salient points of comparison. The polygraph study’s focus, as is the work by 

Stalans, et al, on the probationary period. This is desirable. The Stalan’s study used 

classification tree analysis (CTA), as well as logistic regression, and focused on static 

demographic variables and criminal history and dynamic variables based on violation of 

current probation conditions. The approach was sophisticated, not simple. The technique 

required to build the Stalan’s predictive tool specific to a locality is beyond the capacity of a 

probation department, although a contractor could provide the required technical assistance. 

The required data were available within probation department files. This is also desirable. 

Stalans and her colleagues did not investigate how probation officers could connect the 

predictive results to probationer habilitation. It was outside the scope of the study; as was 

often the case in analogous research. Its predictive strength was poor to fair (0.63-0.71), as is 

true of other measurements described in Table 7. Its sensitivity was a disappointing 0.352, 

compared to 0.79 for the polygraph testing; its specificity was 0.884, compared to the 0.86. 

for diagnostic test developed with polygraph data. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 38
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 39

Table 7: Comparison of Instruments Designed to Predict Domestic 

Violence Re-abuse Based on ROC/AUC 

Predictor Instrument ROC/AUC Followup 

Period 

Instrument 

Purpose 

Source 

Danger Assessment Scale (DAS) 0.73 15 months* Repeat DV violence D.Alex Heckert, Edward W. 

Gondolf 

Spousal Assault Risk 

Assessment (SARA) 

0.64 15 months* Repeat DV violence D.Alex Heckert, Edward W. 

Gondolf 

Kingston Screening Instrument 

for Domestic Violence Offenders 

(K-SID) 

0.57 15 months* Repeat DV violence D.Alex Heckert, Edward W. 

Gondolf 

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide 

(VRAG) 

0.75 10 years Violent wife reassault N.Zoe Hilton, Grant T. Harris, 

Marnie Rice 

Level of Supervision Inventory - 

Revised (LSI-R) 

0.73 5 years Repeat offense R.Karl Hanson & Suzanne 

Wallace-Capretta 

Domestic Violence Screening 

Instrument (DVSI) 

0.65 18 months Repeat DV violence Kirk R. Williams, Amy Barry 

Houghton 

Violent Recidivism on Probation 

(VRP) 

0.67 Offender 

probation 

Violent recidivism by 

violent criminals 

Loretta J. Stalans, Paul R. 

Yarnold, Magnus Seng, David 

Olson, Michelle Repp. 

Woman’s perception of safety 

from DV 

0.64 4 months Violent DV recidivism A Weisz, R. Tolman, D. Saunders 

Multinomial model + women’s 

perceptions 

0.83 15 months Violent DV recidivism D.Alex Heckert, Edward W. 

Gondolf 

Polygraph evidence of continuing 

probationer risky behaviors 

0.85 12 months All arrests Douglas Wilson, et al. 

*Based on data collected by Edward Gondolf in four cities. 

Finally, looking beyond the research of Stalans and her colleagues, there is support 

for the hypothesis that probation departments can construct fair to good predictive models of 

high-risk violent probationers from criminal history data and use polygraph testing during 

probation to monitor dynamic factors with good predictive power. As Dutton and Kropp 

noted earlier, the purpose of predictive models is not simply to predict, but to relate the 

prediction to evidence-based efforts of habilitation (Dutton, et al). 

 

NOTES 

1

 Binary data (arrested, not arrested) are the basis for the ROC/AUC calculations. Using a binary scale and if 

the data are distributed toward the extremes (e.g., in the near-term the police do not rearrest most criminals) the 

AUC measure is likely to be underestimated. As an alternative test, the ROC/AUC was calculated with integer 

data, a proxy for continuous data. The transformation of the data into a continuous or integer scale largely 

eliminates the bias. The fitted ROC Area using continuous data is 0.893, marginally different from the empiric 

AUC of 0.853 measured by the trapezoidal rule. Seong Ho Park, Jin Mo Goo and Chan-Hee Jo, Receiver 

Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve: Practical Review for Radiologists, ,Korean J. Radiology, March 2004 

Calculations based on Eng, J. (n.d.). ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. Retrieved from 

http://www.jrocfit.org. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

 2

It is important to understand that risk-management tools are imperfect. For example, in this study, one 

participant had zero risky behaviors, but the police arrested him for drug possession with intent to distribute. 3

 A common procedure in developing instruments predictive of recidivist behavior is to include variables based 

on a stepwise regression procedure. This implies that each added variable is informative. See for example, N. 

Zoe Hilton, et al, A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario 

domestic assault risk assessment, Psychological Assessment, Vol 16(3), 2004, p.267-275. Stepwise regression 

is not a recommended procedure. Peter Kennedy, A Guide to Econometrics, Second Edition, The MIT Pres, 

1985, p.50, writes: stepwise regression is to be avoided. The estimates are biased. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 40
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

CHAPTER 5: STUDY CONCLUSIONS 

This study focuses on an examination of whether information gained from a postconviction polygraph of high-risk domestic violence probationers is predictive of nearterm subsequent offenses and is thus a useful risk management tool. The group psychoeducational setting of batterer intervention programs is not suited to the integration of 

individual information from polygraph results. Many states regulate the structure and 

process of their domestic violence intervention programs leaving little room for broad 

experimentation. Batterer program facilitators rarely intervene with regard to the 

criminogenic needs exhibited by high-risk probationers in their pre-polygraph interviews. 

The focus of traditional batterer programs is narrow and neglects issues of chronically 

abusive behavior toward men as well as women, substance abuse, involvement with 

firearms, and chronic criminal behavior. Domestic violence intervention protocols do 

little in the way of managing the recidivism risk of assigned probationers. 

The study indicates that the enrollment of high-risk men in a FVIP does not deter 

the likelihood of a subsequent arrest for men who have underlying risky behaviors. This 

is an expected result given that FVIP programs do not deal with the range of risky 

behaviors associated with domestic violence; a range of risky behaviors that are also 

associated with other criminal acts. 

On the other hand, this small study suggests that polygraphy can assist probation 

departments to monitor effectively the risky behaviors of probationers who have an 

elevated risk of continuing criminal behavior and direct high-risk domestic violence 

probationers to habilitation programs that may reduce the risk of recidivism. While the 

small sample of tested probationers in this study militates against proof of effectiveness. 

the evidence is intriguing, and in the expected direction given the outcome of earlier 

psychological and criminal justice research. 

The demonstration worked within the operational processes of the DeKalb County 

criminal justice system, which is similar in its operations to many urban probation 

departments, and provides insight into how the polygraph could be an effective strategic 

tool if the local criminal justice system supported a policy decision to utilize it. 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 41
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

Polygraphy appears to have five benefits in the management of high-risk 

domestically violent men. 

• Polygraphy appears to provide information that can support good 

prediction of near-term recidivism. 

• Standard polygraphy practice affords retesting every three to six months 

or longer to determine if habilitative interventions, ordered because of 

polygraphy test information, have reduced the probationer’s recidivism 

risk. 

• The pre-polygraph interview provides a broader range of information 

about criminogenic behaviors, than is provided by narrower tests such as 

urinanalysis. Probation, however, needs both tools. They are reinforcing. 

• The polygraph tool helps the probation officer and intervention 

facilitators to distinguish between the probationer’s contextually 

appropriate behavior, as exhibited during FVIP sessions or meetings with 

probation officers, and the probationer’s more closely held beliefs, 

feelings, and actions; i.e., it provides the officer or facilitator with the 

needed “bogus pipeline.” 

• Probation can integrate polygraph results, especially pre-test interview 

results and the polygrapher’s interpretation into protocols for the 

contingent management of these high-risk probationers.1 

The polygraph is not simply a stand-alone instrument. It is best when the criminal 

justice system integrates it into a reorganized probation system. Probation must support 

this improved risk management with swift accountability. Polygraphy, because it can be 

an effective method of monitoring probationer behavior requires follow-up, otherwise the 

testing will simply demonstrate to the probationer that he can continue his risky behavior 

with impunity. 

For polygraphy to be an effective probation risk management tool, it is necessary 

that men whom the court has placed on probation comply with their sentence. Probation 

cannot give polygraph tests to men who do not appear. Probation, at its core, is a 

cooperative relationship between the probation officer and the probationer. Probation 

departments do not have sufficient enforcement capacity to prevent opportunistic 

defections from probation, and probationers, especially those criminals the court has 

probated often, understand that the likelihood of arrest upon defection is modest. In this 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 42
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

study, 46 percent of the high-risk domestic violence probationers in the cohort either did 

not meet with their probation officers or failed to enroll in a family violence program 

(FVIP) and then stopped complying with Probation. 

Although probation officers in DeKalb County have the power to arrest 

absconders, the DeKalb County Sheriff’s office usually makes the arrests based on a 

court-issued warrant or the police arrest the absconder during the initial investigation of 

another crime. The enforcement capacity in DeKalb County, as is generally true of 

probation, is such that the likelihood of arrest of a defecting probationer is modest. 

During the study period, the police or the Sheriff arrested 34 percent of the absconding 

men, and the median length of time between the probation infraction and the issuance of 

the warrant is 150 days. 

 Swift accountability, as this study illustrates, is difficult to accomplish. High-risk 

probationers, who fail to report to probation, fail to enroll and attend a FVIP, as well as 

those who attend their FVIP sessions all need improved monitoring, although probation 

may require different tools to respond to the varieties of noncompliance. 

Targeted polygraphy applied to high-risk domestic violence criminals is likely to 

have its greatest effect in an agency with computerized administrative capacity, which 

rapidly identifies absconders, has support from a Sheriff that places priority on the swift 

arrest of these men, and has routine drug testing with certain consequences, whether it is 

a brief jail sentence, enrollment in a substance abuse program or both. 

In addition, a probation officer’s domestic violence caseload and training must be 

commensurate with the officer’s tasks. In a behavioral management demonstration, 

initiated in Maryland, labeled Proactive Community Supervision (PCS), the Maryland 

Department of Corrections, and Rehabilitation reduced the community supervision 

caseload to 55 from 100. (Taxman) 

Given the limited enforcement capacity of probation departments, limited 

administrative capacity, and the requirement of probationer cooperation, it is strategically 

important that probation identify high-risk probationers, target the management of their 

behavior, and apply the department’s enforcement capacity with celerity to respond to 

men who trespass beyond the boundaries of their probation. Such an enforcement 

strategy that focuses on the lesser number of high-risk domestic violence probations may 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 43
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 44

serve to warn other less risky probationers that the Probation Department is able to act 

swiftly and thus deter them from probation defection. 

Effective targeted use of polygraphy along with operational changes may 

result in more effective domestic violence community corrections programs. On 

the other hand, simply adding polygraphy to a probation department’s current 

domestic violence operations may be less rewarding and fail to gain the leverage 

that the instrument can provide. 

 

NOTES 

1

 For a discussion of contingent management in the framework of community corrections see Faye S. 

Taxman, The Role of Community Supervision in Addressing Reentry from Jails, Urban Institute Reentry 

Roundtable, June 2006. 
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 45
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 46
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

APPENDIX: VICTIM HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVEY

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 47
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 48
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 49
Testing and Evaluation of the Use of Polygraphs to Combat Violence Against Women 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation 50