The original paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association in Portland, Oregon in April, 1999. We thank the Santa Clara County Adult Probation Department, California. Without its support and assistance, we could not have completed this project. In addition, interns from the sociology department at San Jose State University were invaluable to the project. Their assistance was funded by a grant from the College of Social Sciences Research Foundation, San Jose State University.  

Domestic violence has become a widespread social problem. Contrary to the view of the family as a haven of love and support, past findings suggest that women are at greater risk of violence in their homes than anywhere else. In response to a high incidence of domestic violence, courts have sought a social solution to wife abuse that does not lead to further crowding of jails (Heise, 1994). Many first-time offenders now receive probation and are ordered by courts to complete domestic violence treatment or counseling programs. These programs are geared towards the rehabilitation of offenders through treatment and reeducation rather than merely punishment.

Only recently, however, have researchers attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of programs to treat batterers. Most studies compare the success or recidivism rates of those who completed the programs with those who failed. In one of those studies, Saunders and Azar (1989) reported that more than half of probationers participating in such programs dropped out before completing their treatment. However, the actual process of completing or failing a domestic violence program remain unclear. How many times do probationers violate their probation before they complete the program? What types of offenses do probationers violate before they fail the program? To address these questions and using participants in a California domestic violence program, we have examined the number and the type of offenses (i.e., new domestic violence or other criminal offenses) and the length of time between probation being granted and the commission of new offenses. With regard to these factors, our approach contrasted probationers who completed the program with those who dropped out (failed).

Our data were obtained from the files of the Santa Clara County Adult Probation Department. The length of the county's treatment program had recently expanded from 12 to 52 weeks (i.e., a one-year program). As of May, 1998, there were 845 participants who either completed the court-ordered domestic violence program, dropped out of the program, or were still in the program. Of those 845 participants, 280 (33.1%) completed the program, 77 (9.1%) dropped out, and 155 (18.3%) were still in the program at this writing. Unfortunately, 333 (39.4%) individuals' statuses were unknown. Excluding unknown individuals, 54.7% of participants completed the program, 15.0% dropped out, and 30.3% were still enrolled. The present study examined the effectiveness of the program by comparing the records of those who failed and those who completed the program. Specifically, we were interested in investigating the number and the type of offenses (i.e., new domestic violence offenses or other criminal offenses) committed during their participation in the program. Additionally, we attempted to investigate the length of time between probation being granted for the current domestic violence and the commission of new domestic violence and other criminal offenses. The study examined the differences in background characteristics of those who completed the program versus those who failed and sought reasons for failure. Finally, we investigated the recidivism rates (the rates of new offenses among those who completed versus those who dropped out of the program) during a 3- to 12-month follow-up period, as well as the time lapse between leaving the program and the commission of new offenses. The latter data were available since participants were still on probation even after completing or withdrawing from the program, probationary periods typically lasting three years.  

Several studies have examined the effectiveness of the domestic violence programs. Tolman and Bennett (1990) showed that 53 to 85% of men who completed treatment were not violent 6 to 18 months later, with lower rates of repeat behavior being associated with longer follow-up periods. Lund, Larsen, and Schultz (1989), based on a study of the Domestic Abuse Project of Minneapolis (i.e., 16 sessions of cognitive behavioral treatment), queried the partners of male participants 6 months after the program. No further violence was reported of 77% of men completing the program (n=27), while the figure was just 54% for men who had dropped out (n=30).

However, this comparison did not control for higher motivational levels, i.e., for factors that might be indirectly responsible for positive changes associated with the program's completion. For example, those who completed the program tended to be better educated and hence might have learned to change on their own without treatment. In addition, this study compared men's rate of violence before court intervention with their rate of violence after court intervention but before treatment, allowing researchers to evaluate whether the effects were due to treatment or merely to the justice system's prior involvement. Rates of violence were lower after arrests and court hearings, and subsequent treatment provided no statistically significant additional benefit. This suggests that most of the positive benefits attributed to treatment may have derived from the justice system's intervention rather than treatment per se.

Another study compared those who did and did not complete treatment offered by the Domestic Abuse Project of Minneapolis (Lund et al., 1989). One hundred and twelve (112) successful participants and 42 dropouts were interviewed. There were no significant differences between these two groups regarding several variables, e.g., childhood violence, prior help-seeking, or sources of referral. Based upon partners' 6-month follow-up reports, 59% of those completing the program and 52% of those who did not were nonviolent. The statistical difference was greatest for the category of severe violence: of those completing the program, about 15% or 1 in 7 committed violent acts after treatment. Of those who failed to complete the program, the figure was 22% or slightly more than 1 in 5.

Hamberger and Hastings (1989) compared the self or partners' reports of 32 men who completed treatment and 36 men who dropped out of a treatment program Seventy-two percent (72%) of graduates and 53% of dropouts had no repeated incidents at a one-year follow-up.

Maiuro, et al., (1989) assessed 65 men before and after they completed an anger management program and compared them with 25 men on a waiting list. All were reassessed after 19 weeks. According to their own and partners' reports, the treated men showed statistically significant decreases in anger and aggression. In contrast, the waiting-list group showed minimal or non-significant changes.

Rosenbaum and Maiuro (1989) indicated that men who completed a treatment program had lower levels of anger, depression, and aggression and demonstrated more adaptive patterns of coping than they had prior to treatment. No such improvements were found in the matched sample of men who received minimal treatment over the same time period.

Kelso and Personette's (1985) study indicated mixed results as to the effectiveness of a treatment program. Participants (court-ordered) reported less violence after treatment than before treatment. However, this difference disappeared after controlling for age and the length of the domestic relationship. The strongest predictor of subsequent abuse was the level of pretreatment violence, which was the highest among younger men.

DeMaris and Jackson (1987) relied on abusers' self-reports of recidivism. Voluntary participants in open-ended therapy groups (which emphasized communication of feelings, coping with stress, and an examination of one's expectations of women) were compared to men attending a court-ordered and much more structured and didactic program. DeMaris and Jackson found that entrance status or whether participants were ordered by the court to attend the program or attended voluntarily had no effects on recidivism (35% versus 34%). However, they also found that voluntary participants showed a greater reduction in violent behavior (24.5 fewer violent incidents after counseling than before counseling) than did court-ordered participants (12 fewer violent incidents after counseling than before). Abuse as a child, the factor of court-ordered participation, and the number of sessions attended were not significantly related to recidivism.

Overall, available studies presented mixed results. In some cases, treatment appears to reduce the physical violence of some men. However, other variables, such as interaction with the justice system, could account for the outcomes (Harrel, 1991). Studies focused on before-after comparisons generally have not controlled for the possible effects of divorce or simple criminal justice sanctions, etc. The fear of these circumstances may have influenced men's behavior as much as (or more than) treatment programs. Quite apart from any program, for instance, there is ample evidence that abusers have been keenly influenced by the likelihood and severity of legal sanctions and the mere possibility of losing a domestic relationship (Carmody and Williams, 1987).

Outcome investigations of batterer programs are essential but need to be evaluated adequately. As well as initial outcomes, research designs should include follow-up data. Moreover, the follow-up period must have a sufficient length to avoid capitalizing on the honeymoon period of nonviolence - a period that often coincides with participation in a treatment program (Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 1986). We believe a follow-up interval of at least 6 months (post-treatment) should be the criterion before possibly judging an intervention "successful." Large-scale controlled studies are also necessary to better evaluate the effectiveness of spousal abuse programs. Too, since the success rate noted in most studies has considered only those completing such programs and especially given typical dropout rates approaching 50%, it remains unclear how successful programs are across a wide range of men (Saunders and Azar, 1989; Rosenbaum and Mariuro, 1989).

Although the previous studies described above provide insights in what happened to those who respectively, completed or failed a treatment program, they do not address important issues regarding the process of completion or the failure. In the present study, we attempted to document participation histories and intervening events. For example, we recorded the number of probation violations, the type of offenses committed during participation in the program, and the length of time between probation being granted and the commission of new offenses during participation in the program. We also examined the recidivism rates, the number and the type of new offenses, and the length of time between completing/failing the program and conviction for new offenses during the 3- to 12-month follow-up period.  

Our study was based upon the records of 845 adult probationers who had been convicted and sentenced to probation for domestic violence in Santa Clara County, California, since 1995. Data collection began in September 1996 and ended in May, 1998. Twenty-five (25) sociology interns were trained in data collection procedures by the researchers and a probation officer. An intern read each probationer's case record, a file containing his/her current and past domestic violence record, criminal history, police record, court report, probation officer's report, and socio-demographic information. Information was transferred onto questionnaires (code sheets) which included probationers' demographic characteristics, past and current domestic violence information, past and current criminal histories, conditions of probation, probation officers' "needs and risk" assessments of probationers, and information on probationers' family backgrounds. Information pertaining to participants' records for a 3- to 12-month period following treatment came from the Criminal Justice Information Control Countywide Data Base.

While the Adult Probation Department's files were comprehensive, each consisted of roughly a 3/4"-thick collection of paper documents: court judgments., police record printouts, P.O.'s reports, and so on. Our aim was to computerize a good part of each file and to thereby facilitate computer-aided statistical analyses of this vast database - starting, of course, with the current and/or most recent cases.

 

A. Offender Demographics

According to Table 1 (Appendix A), our preliminary findings portrayed adult probationers who were male (94.8%), in their twenties or thirties (77.4%), employed (64.6%), and unmarried (47.7%) but living in a household with 1-2 children present (64.0%). Given the county's demographics, slightly more than half (52.6%) were Latino or Hispanic. Although close to two thirds were employed, 61.6% made less than $14,999 annually, and half (51.1%) had held their current jobs for less than one year. At the time of the latest domestic violence incident, 53.7% had prior convictions for domestic violence and 40.8% for assault. Close to 4 out of 5 (78.5%) had spent time in prison/jail for at least one previous offense, and 83.7% had been on probation before. Almost half (46.1%) had graduated from high school, but 3 in 10 (29.4%) had juvenile records.  

B. The Most Recent Domestic Violence Offenses

Of the 800+ people in the treatment program, most (63.8%) had been charged with a misdemeanor, but a similar percentage (65.8%) had committed what we classified as a "severe" assault, i.e., kicking, choking, or using a weapon as opposed to the "milder" pushing, shoving, or verbal abuse (Please see Table 2, Appendix B.). In fact, about 1 in 4 or 24.4% had used a weapon, most often a stick, club, or knife. Participants in the program had been sentenced to an average of 34.81 months probation. Almost half (47.6%), however, had violated probation at least once and 15.4% more than once.  

C. Characteristics of Those Who Completed Versus Those Who Failed the Treatment Program

According to Table 3 (Appendix C), t-tests indicated significant differences (P<.05) in characteristics between those who completed the program and those who failed. Generally, those who were successful appeared more stable and mature than those who dropped out. In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, those who completed the program were more likely to be employed (75% v. 57%) and earn more income than those who failed. The former were more likely to be married (40%) and slightly older (35.5 years old) than those who failed (29%, and 32.2 years, respectively). The successful cohort included 19 (6.8% ) women, while there was only 1 woman (1.3%) in the failed group. Those who completed the program had been in their current jobs for 32.4 months on the average. For those who dropped out, the comparable figure was 16.4 months. Similarly, 79 (53.4%) of those finishing the program had graduated from high school compared to 23 (or 41.9%) of those who dropped out.

Those in the successful cohort also enjoyed fewer problems of both a general and criminal nature than those who failed. The former were less likely to have had address changes in the last year and more likely to report themselves in sound physical health. They were less likely to have drug habits that interfered with their daily functioning or to have prior convictions involving drugs (25% to 44%) and/or alcohol (35% versus 46%).

In fact, those who completed the program generally had less prominent criminal careers. They were older when first convicted of a crime (23-24 versus 20-23), averaged fewer prior felony convictions/juvenile adjudications (.42 versus 1.01). Some 21% had juvenile records as compared to 36% of those failing to complete the program. Successful participants had also had fewer prior periods of probation or parole (2.16 versus 2.74). The successful cohort was less likely to have had earlier probations revoked (11% to 22%) and to have had substance abuse treatment as conditions of probation. On the other hand, they were more likely to have had prior assault convictions, 42% to 27%, and to have used weapons in the latest domestic violence incidents, 26% versus 13%.  

D. New Offenses While in the Treatment Program

We next focused on the period beginning with probation and extending through the treatment program. What new offenses, if any, were committed (and when) by participants while in the treatment program? Given the information to this point, of course, one would expect a more repeat offenses by those who eventually dropped out of and rejected treatment, and this was confirmed by the data. We examined the propensity to commit (1) new acts of domestic violence in particular, and (2) additional criminal acts in general (Please see Appendix D: Tables 4, 4A, and 4B.)  

While most participants did not record new incidents of domestic violence, those who dropped out were more likely to do so by a 3:1 ratio (18% [n=14] versus 6% [n=16] among those eventually completing the counseling/therapy program). When it did happen, the norm for both groups of repeat offenders was one additional incident: 100% of those dropping out versus 88% of those staying with the program. We may speculate, of course, that the former committed additional violations after dropping out and rejecting treatment (next section). However, after being put on probation and according to Table 5B, those who completed the program averaged 7.4 months (221 days) till their next domestic violence conviction, while those who dropped out averaged three months longer (10.9 months or 331 days). The data, frankly, were muddled: more of those who dropped out of treatment became repeat batterers, but they took longer to do so.  

Those who dropped out of the treatment program were more likely to commit new offenses other than domestic violence. More than 3 in 10 did so before dropping out (34%, n=26) as compared to 19% (n=54) of those who remained in treatment (22.5%, n=63). Moreover, most of those completing the program (67%) committed only one new offense. That figure fell to 54% among dropouts, with an additional 46% being convicted of two or three new crimes. Those completing treatment averaged about a year (358 days or 11.9 months) into their probationary periods before committing new crimes. Dropouts, however, averaged about 11.1 months (or 334 days) till their additional offenses.  

E. New Offenses During a 3 to 12 Month Follow-up Period

Participants in the treatment program were followed up after they either completed or dropped out of treatment. During this period, whether participants actually completed treatment made little difference in any tendency to engage again in domestic violence, but it did make a difference in the commission of other crimes.  

Most of the (now former) participants followed over the course of a year were not involved in new acts of domestic violence. (Please see Tables 5, 5A, and 5B in Appendix E.) Among the cohort which had stayed with treatment for the duration, three men (1.1%) were again convicted of domestic violence, with the incidents occurring about a month and one-half (average = 42 days) after completing the program. Among those who dropped out and rejected treatment, 7.8% (n=6) were subsequently convicted of domestic violence again, and the incidents took place over a broad span of time. From the time of stopping treatment, additional assaults occurred anywhere from 8 to 312 days afterward, with the average being 122 days (or 4.1 months)  

Success or failure in the program made more difference in the commission of generalized offenses during the tracking period. (Please see Tables 5A and 5B.) Among those who had remained in treatment for its entirety, 7.1% were convicted of new offense (n=20, including - parenthetically - the three men above also convicted of domestic violence again). Most (90%) of these probationers committed one new offense and averaged 142 days (or 4.7 months) into the follow-up period before doing so. On the other hand, dropping out of the program translated into a 22.1% (n=17) likelihood of being convicted of a different violation over the next 12 months. About a third (35.3%) had two such convictions and the remainder one, with the average lapse being 131 days (or 4.4 months) from dropping out to that first new crime.  

To return to the fundamental questions (Was the program effective? Did participation significantly reduce the likelihood of repeat battering?), the answers must be yes, generally. The findings suggest that complete participation in the treatment program was associated with more successful probationary periods. While in the program, those who eventually completed the year's term evidenced less likelihood of repeating domestic violence (6% versus 18%). In turn, completion of the program also meant a lower probability of resorting to domestic violence again during the subsequent year (1% compared to about 8%). Altogether, then, our findings suggest about a 93% success rate among those who completed the program; only about 7 in 100 had repeated domestic battery up to a year afterwards. The comparable rate was about 75% success, or 1 in 4 repeaters, among dropouts.

Comparisons to other success rates (see Introduction) yield varying interpretations. Previous studies indicated roughly 60-85% success rates, i.e., no repeat domestic battery up to a year or 18 months following the completion of a treatment program. The present program's 93% rate would seem to compare favorably. On the other hand, while slightly more than half (52-54%) of other programs' dropouts reportedly remained battery free, our figure was 75%. Our subjects, even those who failed to last the mandatory year in the program, were statistically unlikely to repeat violent domestic incidents in at least 3 out of 4 cases (over the following year). Did mere association with the program, completed or not, have some ameliorating effects? After all, about 25% of successful participants and about 50% of dropouts committed other crimes while in or following the program. Why the lower rates of 7% and 25%, respectively for domestic violence, particularly since over half (54%) had been convicted of domestic battery prior to the particular offense which produced probation and court-ordered treatment?

We suspect our results may be due as much to the attention these incidents received as to the therapy sessions per se. The immediate effects of therapy and counseling sessions may indeed have been secondary to the effects of the social climate which generated the court's response. Some participants had irregular and unreliable attendance records at therapy and workshop sessions, typically dropping out before their year was up. For them, the benefits of actual program sessions might be questionable at best, and yet their recidivism rate for domestic violence was c. 25%, or roughly half the rate for various other crimes (during the period of the study). Clearly, something inhibited prior tendencies to resort to violence on a partner. We believe this to be the more serious attention given crimes of domestic violence today than ten years ago (when previous studies were reported). Extended family members, neighbors and friends, the police, judges and courts, probation officers, and even mere witnesses or bystanders are less likely to ignore cases of domestic abuse and violence. Nor are such court cases as likely to be dismissed, treated gingerly or reluctantly, and/or concluded with meaninglessly light or negligible "sentences". This more vigilant social climate and its more heedful and enhanced response apparatus cannot be lost on even those who fail to comply with court-ordered treatment. As a result, we believe, even our treatment-failing subjects were less likely to repeat domestic battery than has been true in previous reports. In a sense, our interpretation here somewhat echoes, updates, and strengthens that of Lund, Larsen, and Schultz a decade ago, namely, that the intervention of the justice system - and, we would add, changed community norms and morés - have powerful ameliorating effects. On the other hand, lest the interpretation seem to dismiss the program's influence, its completion did have significant effects.

Overall, those who saw the program through faired better than did those who dropped out (See the results of t-tests in Appendices C and D.). The former had lower recidivism rates for both domestic violence and other crimes. For domestic battery in particular, the program had a higher success rate than others reported in the literature. Again, it may have been due to a more supportive social climate and responsive judicial system than typified other studies, but it still remains that those who completed the program were significantly less likely to indulge in further domestic violence than those who withdrew from the program. Obviously, its discussions, workshops, therapy and counseling, victim testimonials, role playing, and so on had an effect. Changed social climates and norms notwithstanding, this is a clear indication that such programs - besides merely the threat of them - continue to be an effective tool in reducing domestic violence. The Santa Clara County Probation Department (1997) has set standards for batterers' treatment programs. Through the batterers' treatment program, batterers are expected to change their beliefs that legitimize abuse and entitlement/ownership of intimate partners, to change their traditional gender roles, and to change their attitudes that contribute to dominance and control. The batterers' program has somewhat helped those who completed the program diminish traditional, patriarchal beliefs about sex roles and, in turn, fundamental attitudes toward violence. More definitive answers, however, beg additional analyses.

"Successful" and "failing" participants differed in key ways before the program. Our research suggested there were significant differences between probationers who completed the court-ordered domestic violence program and those who failed. In comparison with those who failed, those who completed the program are more likely to be high school graduates, to be employed, have income, to be married, to be older, and have worked longer in the current job. In addition, those completed are less likely to have juvenile records, have drug and health problems and probation/parole revocations as well as juvenile adjudication/felony convictions. Although successful participants had more prior convictions of assaults, they were less likely to have prior convictions of drugs and alcohol. They are also less likely to have their prior probations revoked. As our analyses continue and our sample size grows, we expect to be able to control for some of these additional demographic and personal variables. In doing so , we hope to further untangle the relative contributions of societal changes and treatment programs.

It is obviously important to examine the long-term effects of the program on participants. Without readily-accessible and firm data, informed predictions on batterers' future behaviors will continue to evade clinical and legal practitioners in the area. We hope that, by virtue of having begun a comprehensive database recording probationers' criminal and life histories, the probation department, courts, counselors, and researchers may be able to isolate those factors associated with success in the County's program. The eventual goal, of course, is to formulate comprehensive probationary strategies enhancing the program's success rate. While our research to date may not unequivocally explain who succeeds in the program, who may repeat domestic violence, or how long probationers may avoid further criminal behavior, we believe we have made a modest beginning.

T tests were conducted to examine differences in probationers' characteristics between those who had completed versus those who had failed or dropped out of the domestic violence program. The results are shown in Appendices C and D beginning on the next page.

Carmody, D.C. and K.R. Williams
1987 “Wife Assault and Perceptions of Sanctions.” Violence and Victims 2: 25-39.

DeMaris, A. and J.K. Jackson
1987 “Batterers' Reports of Recidivism after Counseling.” Social Casework 68: 458-465.

Hamberger, L.K. and J.H. Hastings
1989 “Skills Training for Treatment of Spouse Abusers: An Outcome Study,” in D. Saunders and S. Azar (1989),“Treatment programs for family violence,” in L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence, pp. 481-546. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Harrel, A.
1991 Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence offenders. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Heise, L.L.
1994 Violence Against Women: the hidden health burden. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Kelso, D. and L. Personette
1985 Domestic Violence and Treatment Services for Victims and Abusers. Anchorage, Alaska: Altam Association.

Lund, S.H., N.E. Larsen, S.K. Schultz
1989 “Exploratory Evaluation of the Domestic Abuse Project,” in D. Saunders and S. Azar (1989), “Treatment programs for family violence,” in L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence, pp. 481-546. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Maiuro, R.D., T.S. Cahn. P.P. Vitaliano, and J.B. Zegree
1989 “Treatment for Domestically Violent Men: Outcome and Follow-up Data,” in D. Saunders and S. Azar (1989), “Treatment programs for family violence,” in L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence, pp. 481-546. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Roberts, A.R.
1996 Helping Battered Women: New Perspectives and Remedies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenbaum, A. and R.D. Maiuro
1989 “Eclectic Approaches in Working with Men Who Batter,” in P.L. Caesar and L.K. Hamberger(eds.), Treating Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and Programs, pp. 165-195. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Rosenbaum, A. and K.D. O'Leary
1986 “Treatment of marital violence,” in N. Jacobsen and A. Gurman (eds.), Clinical Handbook of Marital Therapy, pp. 385-405. New York: Guilford Press.

Santa Clara County Probation Department
1997 Standards for Batterers Program and Certification. California

Saunders, D. and S. Azar
1989 “Treatment programs for family violence,” in L. Ohlin and M. Tonry (eds.), Family Violence, pp. 481-546. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tolman, R.M. and L.W. Bennett
1990 “A review of qualitative research on men who batter.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5: 87-118.

Go to the Domestic Violence Project Home Page