DOI: 10.3886/icpsr04383.v1
title: Effects of Short-Term Batterer Treatment for Detained Arrestees in Sacramento County, California, 1999-2000
title: Version 1

description: This study evaluated the effects of a program for detained
arrestees developed by the Sacramento Sheriff's Department. The
program was set up as an early intervention program to provide
domestic violence (DV) education for arrestees during their time of
detention before going to court. This evaluation used an experimental
design. The researchers randomly assigned 629 batterers to either the
batterer treatment wing of the jail or to a no-treatment control group
in another wing of the jail. Interviews were conducted with the
batterers and victims shortly after the arrest that placed the
batterer in the Sacramento jail (Parts 1 and 2) and again six months
after the intervention or control condition was concluded (Parts 3 and
4). Official police arrest data on recidivism were also collected
post-arrest (Part 5). Interviews were conducted over the phone, except
for the baseline batterer interviews that were done in the jail, and
for those who were not available for interviewing, over the phone.
Activities of the batterer treatment program included: mandatory
detention in a special DV jail wing supervised by correction officers
who had received special DV training, batterer educational workshops,
daily Twelve-Step Drug/Alcohol addiction support groups, and strict
regulations on television watching (special nonviolent educational
programs were the only available programs). Batterer education classes
were held daily, and the research team checked attendance logs. The
arrestees were required at least to attend the program classes and
Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous groups and sit quietly. For
the control group, participants were assigned to the regular part of
the jail and received the usual incarceration experience of persons
detained in the Sacramento County Jail (including no treatment
services). Official police arrest data on recidivism were analyzed for
up to one year post-arrest (Part 5). Treatment implementation data
(Part 6), which records the frequency of the batterer's attendance in
the various treatment programs offered in the special DV jail wing,
and variables used in the analysis for the project's final report
(Part 7) are also available with this collection. In addition to
general demographic variables such as age, race, religion, source of
income, and employment situation, specific variables are gathered for
specific datasets. Variables collected in Parts 1 and 2 (Batterer and
Victim Baseline Data) include information regarding whether or not the
batterer was in the treatment or control group, the relationship
between the batterer and victim, and types of injuries the victim
received. Parts 3 and 4 (Batterer and Victim Six-Month Data) contain
variables related to employment and living situation, as well as any
additional assistance either party received since the arrest
event. Variables in Part 5 (Tracking Database) include the date,
location, and length of interviews. Part 6 (Treatment and
Implementation Data) contains variables related to the different
programs the batterer in the experimental group may have participated
in. The variables for Part 7 (Supplemental Final Report Variables)
include information about the study participants such as whether all
four interviews were completed and the presence of any new domestic
violence charges.
description: This study evaluated the effects of a program for
detained arrestees developed in the Sacramento Sheriff's Department.
The program was set up as an early intervention program to provide
domestic violence (DV) education for arrestees during their time of
detention before going to court. The program objectives were to raise
awareness ("break down the wall of denial") for DV offenders, educate
program participants on nonviolent conflict resolution skills,
increase receptivity to long-term treatment, provide the opportunity
for drug and alcohol intervention, and reduce domestic violence
recidivism. The objectives of the research were to evaluate the
effectiveness of this program against a no-treatment control group on
reductions in DV recidivism.
description: This evaluation used an experimental design. Data
were collected on 629 arrest cases for male-perpetrated domestic
violence in Sacramento County, California from September 27, 1999 to
August 6, 2000. The researchers randomly assigned the batterers to
either the batterer treatment wing of the jail or to a no-treatment
control group in another wing of the jail. Interviews were conducted
with the batterers and victims shortly after the arrest that placed
the batterer in the Sacramento jail (Parts 1 and 2) and again six
months after the intervention or control condition was concluded
(Parts 3 and 4). Official police arrest data on recidivism were also
collected for up to one year post-arrest (Part 5). Interviews were
conducted over the phone, except for the baseline batterer interviews
that were done in the jail, and for those who were not available for
interviewing over the phone. The survey instruments all took on
average about 40 to 45 minutes to administer by a trained interviewer.
In order to ensure full voluntary subject participation, an extensive
interviewer-training program was put in place. Activities of the
batterer treatment program included: mandatory detention in a special
DV jail wing that was supervised by correction officers who had
received special DV training, batterer educational workshops, daily
Twelve-Step Drug/Alcohol addiction support groups, and strict
regulations on television watching (special nonviolent educational
programs were the only available programs). Batterer education classes
were held daily, and the research team checked attendance logs. These
classes were conducted by Men Allied Nationally Against Living in
Violent Environments (MANALIVE) and by Women Escaping A Violent
Environment (WEAVE) on a rotating basis. The classes were about three
hours in length. The average length of incarceration for the DV
arrestees was about five days, during which they received the
interventions while held in the special wing of the jail. The
arrestees were required at least to attend the program classes and
Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous groups and sit quietly. For
the control group, participants were assigned to the regular part of
the jail and received the usual incarceration experience of persons
detained in the Sacramento County Jail (including no treatment
services). The research team conducted announced and unannounced
assessments of the fidelity of the interventions, during which a
sampling of intervention sessions were observed, coded, and compared
to the written curriculum by two independent raters present in each of
the sessions. Inter-rater reliability exceeded 95 percent, with over a
90 percent agreement between what was occurring in the sessions
compared to the curriculum. Treatment implementation data (Part 6),
which records the frequency of the batterer's attendance in the
various treatment programs offered in the special DV jail wing, and
includes variables used in the analysis for the project's final report
(Part 7) are also available with this collection.
description: In addition to general demographic variables such
as age, race, religion, source of income, and employment situation,
specific variables are gathered for specific datasets. Variables in
Parts 1 and 2 (Batterer Baseline and Victim Baseline datasets) include
information about whether or not the batterer was in the treatment or
control group, reason for batterer arrest, relationship to
victim/batterer, types of injuries the victim received, interactions
with the police, and drug/alcohol use. In Parts 3 and 4 (Batterer and
Victim Six-Month Data) information is included on employment, living
situation, any assistance or counseling received, the batterer and
victim's relationship to one another, and whether either one of them
had had any other relationships since the arrest. Information specific
to the batterer six-month follow-up includes any additional violent
behavior and any drug and/or alcohol use. Information specific to the
victim six-month follow up includes variables regarding her
experiences with the legal system regarding this case and any violence
experienced by the batterer since the arrest. In Part 5 (Tracking
Database), variables include the date, location, and length of the
interview, and whether or not the individual was involved in the
program, and if so, whether or not he was in the experimental or
control group. Part 6 (Treatment Implementation Data) contains
variables related to the multiple types of treatment and intervention
programs batterers were offered in jail, such as the frequency of
attendance in Changing Courses and Man Alive classes. In Part 7
(Supplemental Final Report Variables), the data include information
about the study participants such as whether all four interviews were
completed, any new domestic violence charges, and if so, the amount of
time that passed between completing the treatment and the new
charges.
description: Response Rates: For the batterers, 90 percent (560 of 629) completed
the baseline interview. Batterer six-month follow-up self-report data
was available for only about 20 percent of the sample (119 of 629). As
for the victims, 33 percent (208 of 629) completed the baseline
interview and 22.7 percent (143 of 629) completed the six-month
follow-up interview. Nonsignificant model findings lent support to
the idea that the victims and batterers who completed an interview
were not significantly different than those who did not. Official
12-month follow-up police data were available for 93 percent (582 of
629) of the batterers.
description: Presence of Common Scales: The study used a modified version of the Conflict Tactics
Scale II (Straus et al., 1996) that has sub-scales for controlling
behavior, psychological abuse, threats of physical assault, actual
physical and sexual assault, and injuries.
description: Persons eligible to enter the experiment included adult
men: (1) who had been arrested for a misdemeanor or felony domestic
violence offense in Sacramento County, California, against a female
victim, (2) who did not put forward a $10,000 bail, (3) who had no
criminal gang affiliations, and (4) who had no prior history of
serving a sentence in jail or prison for one year or greater. The
selection of DV arrestees into the special wing of the jail was not a
voluntary process. Between September 27, 1999 and August 6, 2000, the
Sacramento County Main Jail booked approximately 50,000 male
arrestees. Of those, about 5 percent or 2,500 were arrested on DV
offenses. The batterer program excluded 50 percent of DV arrestees
because of prior convictions. Therefore, the program's eligibility
pool was 1,040 cases for the 10-month study intake period. The study
lost an additional 370 cases due to arrestees making bail and 41 cases
for a variety of other reasons. The final sample consisted of 629
adult males arrested for a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence
offense in Sacramento County, California, against a female victim. The
researchers had to contend with the possibility of men in the
experiment getting re-arrested and re-entering the experiment. Each
time a person was entered into the experiment, the research staff
checked the experiment log for a previous entry. For the 95 repeat
cases, the study team assigned each back to their original condition
(47 treatment and 48 control cases) to maintain a clear distinction
between the treatment and control groups. No discernible pattern to
these 95 cases was found in terms of differences between the treatment
and control groups.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Batterer Baseline Data
DS2: Victim Baseline Data
DS3: Batterer Six-Month Data
DS4: Victim Six-Month Data
DS5: Tracking Database
DS6: Treatment Implementation Data
DS7: Supplemental Final Report Variables
description: Adult males under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County
who were arrested for domestic violence offenses between September 27,
1999 and August 6, 2000.
description: record abstracts; face-to-face interview; telephone interview