Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior?

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Court-mandated batterer intervention programs are being implemented throughout the United States to address the problem of domestic violence. Prior reviews of research on the effectiveness of these programs have arrived at conflicting conclusions. This study is a systematic review of the extant research on this topic. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that used matching or statistical controls were included. The results were mixed. The mean effect for official reports of domestic violence from experimental studies showed modest benefit, whereas the mean effect for victim reported outcomes was zero. Quasi-experimental studies using a no-treatment comparison had inconsistent findings indicating an overall small harmful effect. In contract, quasi-experimental studies using a treatment dropout design showed a large, positive mean effect on domestic violence outcomes. We discuss the weakness of the latter design and raise concerns regarding official reports. The findings, we believe, raise doubts about the effectiveness of court-mandated batterer intervention programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, D. & McCormick, A. (1982). Men unlearning violence: A group approach based onthe collective model. In M. Roy (Ed.), The abusive partner: An analysis of domesticbattering (pp. 170–197). New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C. & Taillade, J. (2000). Evaluating interventions for men who batter. InJ. Vincent & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Domestic violence: Guidelines for research-informedpractice (pp. 37–77). Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E. & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analyticreview of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review 23(8), 1023–1053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R., Boruch, T., Chambers, F., Rossi, P. & Witte, S. (1985). Social policyexperimentation: A position paper. Evaluation Review 9(4), 387–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R., Campbell, A., Klap, R. & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest inincidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. AmericanSociological Review 57(5), 698–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, N. (1981). Battering husbands: A survey of abusive men. Victimology 6, 338–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalk, R. & King, P. (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatmentprograms. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, H., Bersani, C., Myers, S. & Denton, R. (1989). Evaluating the effectiveness of acourt sponsored treatment program. Journal of Family Violence 4, 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issuesfor field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, N. & Burgess, A. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. & Taylor, B. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? Women andCriminal Justice 10, 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Davis, R. C., Taylor, B. G. & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduceviolence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Washington, DC: National Institute ofJustice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Navy experiment: An assessment of interventionsfor men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68,468–476.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Dutton, D. (1984). Interventions into the problem of wife assault: Therapeutic, policy andresearch implications. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 16(4), 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (1986). Wife assaulter’s explanations for assault: The neutralization of selfpunishment.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 18(4), 381–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (1988). Research advances in the study of wife assault: Etiology and prevention.Law and Mental Health 4, 161–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. & McGregor, B. (1991). The symbiosis of arrest and treatment for wife assault:The case for combined intervention. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policyresponses (pp. 131–154). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisikovits, Z. & Edleson, J. (1989). Intervening with men who batter: A critical review ofthe literature. Social Service Review 63, 384–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L. (1997). Domestic violence and police response in a pro-arrest jurisdiction. Womenand Criminal Justice 8(4), 79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court mandated counseling fordomestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment. Justice Quarterly 19(2), 343–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L. & Forde, D. (2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling fordomestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment (Final report, Grant NIJ-96-WTNX-0008). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, D. & Magill, J. (1988). An evaluation of a group program for men who batter. SocialWork With Groups 11(3), 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feazell, C., Mayers, R. & Deschner, J. (1984). Services for men who batter: Implications forprograms and policies. Family Relations 33, 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wife assaulters. In Z. Hilton(Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation (pp. 127–164).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. (1987). Evaluating programs for men who batter: Problems and prospects.Journal of Family Violence 2(1), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goolkasian, G. (1986). Confronting domestic violence: The role of criminal court judges.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gordon, J. A. & Moriarty, L. J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer treatmenton domestic violence batterer treatment and domestic violence recidivism. CriminalJustice and Behavior 30(1), 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K. & Hastings, J. (1989). Counseling male spouse abusers: Characteristics oftreatment completers and dropouts. Violence and Victims 4(1), 275–286.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K. & Hastings, J. (1993). Court-mandated treatment of men who assault theirpartner. In Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluation(pp. 188–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence offenders(Final report). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselblad, V. & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests.Psychological Bulletin 117, 167–178.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, K. & Smith, C. (1998). Batterer programs: What criminal justice agencies need toknow. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, K., Smith, C. & O’Sullivan, C. (1998). Batterer intervention: Program approachesand criminal justice strategies. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilberman, E. (1980). Overview: The “wife-beater’s wife” reconsidered. American Journalof Psychiatry 137(11), 1336–1347.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschel, J. D. & Hutchinson, I. (1992). Female spouse abuse and the police response: TheCharlotte, North Carolina Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83(1),73–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotaling, G. & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wifeviolence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims 1(2), 101–124.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J. (1987). History and issues in the treatment of battering men: A case forunstructured group therapy. Journal of Family Violence 2(3), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. & Kanzler, D. (1993). Treating domestic violence: Evaluating the effectivenessof a domestic violence diversion program. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 15, 271–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jones, A. S. & Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Assessing the effect of batterer program completionon reassault: An instrumental variables analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18(1), 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. & Innes, C. (1986). Preventing domestic violence against women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., Cohen, M. & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Palmer, S., Brown, R. & Barrera, M. (1992). Group treatment program for abusivehusbands: Long-term evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62(2), 276–283.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pence, E. (1983). The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Hamline Law Review 6,247–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirog-Good, M. & Stets-Kealey, J. (1985). Male batterers and battering prevention programs:A national survey. Response. 8, 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennison, C. R. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (1982). A national survey of services for batterers. In Maria Roy (Ed.), Theabusive partner: An analysis of domestic battering (pp. 230–243). New York: VanNostrand-Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, B. (1992). Court-ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review12, 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. (1996). Interventions for men who batter: Do we know what works? InSession: Psychotherapy in Practice 2(3), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1992). The influence of criminology on criminal law: Evaluating arrests formisdemeanor domestic violence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83, 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, D. & Scheer, N. (1981). Predicting disposition following brief residence at a shelterfor battered women. American Journal of Community Psychology 9, 559–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonkin, D. J. (1988). The male batterer: Clinical and research issues. Violence and Victims3(1), 65–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for publicpolicy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19–47). Cincinnati,OH: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S. & Sugarman, D. (1996). The revised ConflictTactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal ofFamily Issues 17(3), 283–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, C., Rumptz, M., Campbell, R., Eby, K. & Davidson, W. (1996). Retainingparticipants in longitudinal community research: A comprehensive protocol. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science 32(3), 262–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Syers, M. & Edleson, J. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justiceintervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7, 490–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B., Davis, R. & Maxwell, C. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatmentprogram: A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly 18(1), 171–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female andfemale-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence AgainstWomen Survey. Violence Against Women 6(2), 142–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. & Bennett, L. (1990). A review of quantitative research on men who batter.Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5, 87–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. & Edleson, J. (1995). Intervention for men who batter: A review of research.In S. Stith & M. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes,consequences and solutions (pp. 262–273). Minneapolis, MN: National Council onFamily Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., Lum, C. & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomesin criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widom, C. S. (1992). The cycle of violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorza, J. (2003). New research: Broward County Experiment shows no benefit from battererintervention programs. Domestic Violence Report 8, 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Administration of Justice, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207-4015, USA

    Lynette Feder

  2. George Mason University, 10900 University Boulevard, MS 4F4, Manassas, VA, 20110-2203, USA

    David B. Wilson

Authors
  1. Lynette Feder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feder, L., Wilson, D.B. A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior?. J Exp Criminol 1, 239–262 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0

Key words

Search

Navigation