Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications

Abstract

Over 40 published program evaluations have attempted to address the effectiveness of “batterer programs” in preventing reassaults. Summaries and meta-analysis of these evaluations suggest little or no “program effect.” Methodological shortcomings, however, compromise most of these quasi-experimental evaluations. Three recent experimental studies appear to confirm little or no effect, but implementation problems, intention-to-treat design, and sample attrition limit these results. A longitudinal 4-year follow-up evaluation in four cities poses additional considerations and evidence of at least a moderate program effect. There is a clear deescalation of reassault and other abuse, the vast majority of men do reach sustained nonviolence, and about 20% continuously reassault. The prevailing cognitive–behavioral approach appears appropriate for most of the men, but the following enhancements are warranted: swift and certain court response for violations, intensive programming for high-risk men, and ongoing monitoring of risk. Program effectiveness depends substantially on the intervention system of which the program is a part.

Introduction

The question of what to do about men who batter their female partners has haunted the domestic violence field since its emergence in the late 1970s. Many advocates working with battered women felt—and many still feel—that few batterers could be changed given the social reinforcement for and tolerance of violence against women (Taubman, 1986). Trying to counsel or educate such men might, in fact, raise false hopes in battered women and worsen their already difficult circumstances. Protection for women and separation from their male batterers, therefore, became the overarching intervention objective (e.g., Dobash & Dobash, 1992). In the late 1970s, however, some men's counselors allied with the battered women's advocates and began antisexist consciousness-raising groups primarily for men who professed wanting to change (Adams, 1989). Group facilitators led discussions that exposed men's socialization to dominate women and, in some cases, use violence to maintain that dominance (see Adams, 1989).

Batterer programs gradually became more sophisticated by adopting cognitive–behavioral techniques from the counseling of other violent men (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Some of these programs emphasizing gender issues have been accused of being too “confrontive” (Stosny, 1995), while others emphasizing skill building are often criticized for being naı̈vely superficial and lacking a clear message of change (Gondolf & Russell, 1986). The fact is that numerous curriculums have been developed incorporating both gender issues and cognitive–behavioral techniques (e.g., Kivel, 1992, Pence & Paymar, 1993, Russell, 1995, Stordeur & Stille, 1989).

While a gender-based cognitive–behavioral orientation is the most prominent approach, other more psychodynamic or emotive approaches have been forwarded as well (e.g., Dutton, 1998, Stosny, 1995). These approaches attempt to address the psychological issues and emotional hurts of men that may contribute to their abuse. A variety of other therapies have also emerged: anger management (a streamlined adaptation of cognitive–behavioral treatment), dialectical counseling, neuropsychological treatment, “wrap-around” services, and couples counseling (for a review of couples counseling, see O'Leary, 2002).

Despite caricatures of some conflicting approaches (e.g., Raab, 2000), there has been a convergence around the fundamental parameters of gender-based, cognitive–behavioral counseling Austin & Dankwort, 1999, Bennett, 1998. This approach generally prompts an individual to recognize and take responsibility for his abusive behavior, use techniques to avoid abuse, develop alternative behaviors, and expose rationalizations for abuse. Of course, within these parameters are a range of styles, experience, training, and orthodoxy. There is also a range of formats from educational or instructional formats to those that are more discussion- and process-oriented. One of the main questions from this 20-year evolution is whether or not the resultant gender-based, cognitive–behavioral counseling is effective in reducing men's abuse, and particularly their reassault, of women. Reassault has been the principal outcome of interest since it is associated with physical injury, is the prime concern of the courts, and is more concretely measurable.

The following discussion explores the attempts to answer the pressing question of program effectiveness, and in the process shows why an answer has been difficult to reach. It begins by illustrating the conceptual and methodological challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of batterer programs and reasons for some of the contradictory outcomes. There are substantial conceptual and methodological issues that need to be considered in implementing and interpreting especially the recent experimental program evaluations. These issues, and the small number of substantial evaluations, undercut the utility of the recent meta-analyses in the field. The meta-analyses also neglect the findings of longitudinal trends, sophisticated dose–response analysis, and the circumstantial evidence from complementary research.

Next, we summarize various findings from our 7-year multisite evaluation of batterer programs that attempts to address some of these issues and shortcomings. We construct a case for program effectiveness and improvement by weighing various outcomes from our multisite evaluation with complementary studies. Our conclusion is that some batterer counseling programs appear to contribute to the reduction of reassault, but this possibility is related to the intervention system of which the program is a part. The majority of the men, regardless of “personality type,” appear to benefit from the intervention. Categorical claims that batterer programs “do not work” may, therefore, over generalize or misinterpret the current research.

Our review of the literature constructs a case for program effectiveness through synthesizing a patchwork of research that appears to intersect and even converge at points around the strengths of a comprehensive multisite evaluation. The result is more an overview of critical issues and considerations in batterer program evaluation rather than a systematic dissection of evaluations or technical account of our multisite evaluation. Several research reviews of this kind have already been published by both practitioner–researchers (e.g., Aldarondo, 2002, Mederos, 1999) and researcher–practitioners (e.g., Babcock & LaTaillade, 2000, Saunders & Hamill, in press), and over 40 technical research articles have been published on our multisite evaluation.