Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence?

Abstract

This paper reviews three questions based upon the research literature on group treatment programs for batterers: (1) Does treatment reduce violence relative to the absence of treatment, (2) Do some forms of treatment work better than others, and (3) Does treatment work better for some batterers than for others? While there exist several dozen evaluations of batterer treatment programs, few have employed methodologies which are appropriate to addressing the issue of whether treatment is effective. However, among the handful of quasiand true experiments there is fairly consistent evidence that treatment works and that the effect of treatment is substantial. Regarding the second question, we have little evidence to date that one form of treatment is superior to another or that longer programs turn out less violent graduates than shorter ones. Regarding the last question, there are bases for hypothesizing that some batterers may fare better in treatment (or fare better in certain types of treatment) than others. However, empirical verification has been highly limited to date. The paper concludes with lessons drawn from the literature on designing future research.

The current practices of intervention with batterers

“…And, although such dimensions were addressed by a considerable percentage of programs, they were not assessed or identified as a success criterion. Moreover, the previous revisions 22,66 and meta-analysis 13,17,18 on batterer intervention efficacy only focused on recidivism rates. So, the inclusion of other success indicators is an important contribution of the present review.…”

“…If, on one hand, some programs show positive results 26,27,32,33,35,37,39,43,47 , others do not reveal significant differences between the group that participated in the intervention and the group that did not receive intervention 20,28,42,52,54 . Some authors state that mixed results are due to either differences in terms of indicators and measures used in the assessment 17,22,66,65 or the success and efficacy definition 67 . In the analysed studies there is a multitude of parameters and assessment measures that can constrain the assessment of the efficacy.…”

“…The choice for this time gap was based in two factors: (1) to obtain a sufficiently wide and current sample of the existent programs; and (2) to fulfil the constraints of previous meta-analysis and systematic literature reviews on this matter that mainly focused on recidivism or re-offense rates to assess intervention programs efficacy 13,17,18,22,23 . With this purpose, social sciences data bases of higher visibility were consulted: ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, SAGE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ERIC -Educational Resources Information Centre, ISI Web of Knowledge, NCJRS -National Criminal Justice Reference Service.…”

Domestic violence treatment response and recidivism: A review and implications for the study of family violence

“…Here is an easily identifi ed population for intervention, and failure of the intervention is likely to have serious consequences for the victim. Unfortunately, there is much debate about the effectiveness of interventions with batterers (e.g., Babcock et al, 2004, Davis and Taylor, 1999and Rosenfeld, 1992.…”

Social Networks of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators

“…A 1999 meta-analysis of quasiexperiments and true experiments evaluating BIPs' efficacy concluded that BIPs are generally effective, and have substantial effects on recidivism, though they found no difference in outcomes among programs with different theoretical approaches and lengths (Davis & Taylor, 1999). A 2004 meta-analysis of twenty-two existing studies corroborated these findings, identifying no differences between the effects of BIPs that used the Duluth curriculum and those that rely more heavily on cognitive-behavioral approaches, and generally small effects for all of the programs assessed across the studies reviewed (Babcock, Green & Robie, 2004).…”