|
Batterer Intervention- Program Approaches and Criminal Justice
Strategies
Chapter1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
Chapter
4:
Current Trends in Batterer Intervention:
Innovations From the Field and the Research Community
Both practitioners and academics have long been concerned that a
"one-size-fits-all" intervention approach is neither effective nor
appropriate for the diverse population of batterers entering the criminal
justice system. Program directors and probation officers interviewed for this
report frequently observed that battering was not a "monolithic" or
"unitary" phenomenon, as had been argued previously by some theorists
and treatment professionals: they saw no one type of batterer and found no one
intervention or treatment to be effective with all batterers. In response to
this diversity, two categories of program refinements are emerging from
practitioner innovations and cooperative field research among practitioners,
criminal justice agencies, and academics:
o interventions that are tailored to specific types of batterers ("batterer
typology") based on the batterer's psychological profile, criminal history,
substance abuse history, or assessment of lethality; and
o intervention models that tailor curriculums and program policies to
accommodate batterers' sociocultural differences, such as poverty, poor
literacy, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation.
In addition, a new theory of the origins of battering has been advanced,
together with an unconventional treatment approach. The merit of many of the
models and curriculums continues to be debated. However, the need for innovation
is also increasingly recognized and accepted. Researchers interviewed for this
report emphasized that the development of new or the refinement of older
batterer intervention models need not conflict with the adoption of State
standards or certification criteria for batterer interventions. Standards need
only be flexible enough to permit responsible variation among programs and to
provide guidelines for the safe development of new approaches.
Interventions Based on Batterer Typologies
Evidence that individual factors play a role in battering is easily found. Not
everyone who grows up witnessing domestic violence becomes a batterer, and not
all batterers grew up witnessing domestic violence; most males exposed to a
"culture of violence" and male dominance do not batter. The questions
remain whether and, if so, how the individual attributes that contribute to
violence should be treated and whether programs can diversify to meet the needs
of every typology.
Mounting Evidence of the Need for Typologies
Arguments that intervention should be tailored to accommodate individual
psychological characteristics are not new.[1] However, research findings
pointing to the need for batterer typologies have generally failed to alter
treatment programs, both because feminist-based programs view the focus on
psychological attributes of batterers unfavorably and because researchers do not
agree on what a typology of batterers might look like.
Psychological Typologies
Unfortunately, no consensus concerning psychological categories for batterers
has emerged from the research community although several overlapping typologies
have been proposed. For example, Gondolf's 1988 study using 525 battered women
as informants yielded three types of batterers: sociopathic, antisocial, and
typical.[2] However, as noted in chapter 1, Gondolf's current research on
batterers -- which includes psychological assessments using the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI), a diagnostic tool used by a number of programs
-- has yielded an extremely varied picture of batterer psychology that does not
fit neatly with earlier research: 25 percent showed evidence of a severe mental
disorder; 25 percent showed narcissistic personality traits; 24 percent showed
passive-aggressive traits; and 19 percent were clinically depressed. Over half
the men appeared to have abused alcohol.[3] Other researchers have arrived at
the following tripartite classification scheme for batterers:[4]
o The "Family Only" Batterer is characterized as rigid, perfectionist,
and conforming, with limited social skills. The family-only batterer did not
experience much physical abuse in childhood and is mildly to moderately violent
toward his family.
o The Dysphoric/Borderline Batterer is very emotional, experienced parental
rejection and fears abandonment, and is extremely abusive psychologically but
not severely violent physically.
o The "Generally Violent/Antisocial" Batterer tends to abuse alcohol,
lacks empathy, has rigid gender role attitudes, and is narcissistic -- that is,
expects special treatment and deference. He was physically abused in childhood
and engages in other crimes, viewing violence as the appropriate method of
solving problems.
Donald Dutton has recently proposed yet another tripartite scheme that is
similar, but not identical, to the others.[5] Dutton classifies batterers as
emotionally volatile, psychopathic, or overcontrolled/explosive.
The Third Path and AMEND use the MCMI to produce profiles of pathology that
allow for the classification of batterers to aid treatment.[6] At The Third
Path, psychological traits are addressed in group, and groups are structured so
that a mixture of personality types is present.
While psychological typologies are interesting from a theoretical standpoint,
they offer little assistance to the criminal justice system as yet because of
the in-depth assessment needed to identify these characteristics and the paucity
of typology-based interventions available in the field. The criminal
justice-based typologies discussed below offer a more practical frontline
approach to batterer triage; nonetheless, the more subtle distinctions made
possible by psychological typologies may be of great use to jurisdictions and
program providers that are willing to integrate group process intervention with
the educational model used by most programs (see "Typology in Action:
Colorado's 18th Judicial District," p. 61). For example, in Iowa, State
officials have consulted with Michael Lindsey, founder of Colorado's AMEND and
The Third Path, to explore options for using batterer typology to identify
high-risk offenders for private counseling, or alcohol treatment, or extended
interventions that would address psychological factors as well as provide
education, although Iowa State Standards mandate the use of the Duluth
curriculum.
Criminal Justice-Based Typologies
While courts, probation officers, prosecutors, and program screeners in all
jurisdictions routinely make decisions concerning the dangerousness of offenders
and the appropriateness of various interventions for individual batterers, few
jurisdictions have systematic assessment tools based on an articulated theory of
batterer typology. Typical of the majority of jurisdictions visited for this
report was the Quincy, Massachusetts, Court Model Domestic Abuse Program, which
provides probation officers with a manual containing specific guidelines to help
them assess the dangerousness of offenders and a discussion of intervention
issues but no standardized diagnostic form or referral protocols. Recent
research by John Goldkamp may offer a practical, more standardized approach to
offender classification. Using demographic information, criminal histories, and
substance abuse data from his study of the Dade County Domestic Violence Court,
Goldkamp proposes several classification strategies to assist in the disposition
of batterers.[7] Goldkamp's typologies focus on predicting batterer retention in
treatment and the likelihood of reoffending, both with the same victim and with
other women (see exhibit 4-1, "Predictive Classification of
Rearrest"). Goldkamp's approach is attractive from a criminal justice
perspective because, as listed below, the information necessary to predict
retention in treatment and recidivism should be already available to most
prosecutors, probation officers, and judges in rap sheets and probation reports
without having to do a special assessment of the offender. These provide:
o basic demographic information concerning the offender, such as race/ethnicity,
age, relationship to the victim, and victim gender;
o a detailed criminal history, such as current offense, any prior civil court
cases, convictions, and number and types of arrests -- assault and battery
arrests, same-victim arrests, and domestic-violence-related arrests; and
o information about drug and alcohol involvement, including types of drugs
abused.
Goldkamp's analysis found that "[t]he probability of rearrest was far
greater for persons with any prior convictions, any prior assault and battery
arrests, and indications of involvement with other drugs of abuse (not
alcohol)."8 This analysis is consistent with Gondolf's finding that monthly
drunkenness triples an offender's likelihood of rearrest.[9]
Using a matrix that categorized defendants and probationers by dropout risk on
one dimension and rearrest risk with the same victim on the other, Goldkamp was
able to draw some potentially useful distinctions among offenders that go beyond
assessing dangerousness: "[M]ore than one-third (37 percent) of the sample
would fall into the lowest dropout risk and lowest same-victim rearrest
categories. (In other words, they should be great treatment prospects and pose
little risk to the victim.) But some defendants who pose little threat to the
victim (low risk of rearrest) are not classified as likely to stay in treatment.
About seven percent of all defendants/probationers are in the high dropout risk
category, even though they are in the lowest victim risk category."[10]
This sort of analysis would be extremely helpful to probation officers,
prosecutors, and judges in determining sentences and assigning batterers to
specialized programs. After assignment to a specific program, the batterer could
then be subject to additional intake assessment, including a psychological
evaluation, if the program was geared to address psychological issues.
The following discussion presents an approach to batterer classification that
combines both psychological and criminal justice factors to create offender
profiles as an aid to sentencing and supervision.
Typology in Action: Colorado's 18th Judicial District
The 18th Judicial District Probation Department in Colorado has implemented a
unique batterer assessment and intervention assignment process based on Michael
Lindsay's research concerning batterer typology. Frank Robinson, consultant
clinical social worker to the probation office, and Michael Lindsey have
collaborated on an assessment tool, the Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist,
which catalogs the batterer's history of intimate relationships, parenting,
criminality, substance abuse, and social and psychological dysfunction to assign
the batterer to one of three offender groups: low, medium, or high level of
risk. The one-page assessment tool includes 38 questions and requires
approximately 45 minutes to administer. Probation officers or volunteers can be
easily trained to implement it.
Low-risk offenders must not have caused any physical injury and must not have
committed any previous violent offenses against the victim. The offender's claim
that this was the first episode of violence -- not merely the first episode to
be reported -- needs to be corroborated by the victim. In addition, low-risk
offenders must:
o have no history of verbal or psychological abuse (as reported by the victim);
o have no history of "chaotic or dysfunctional behavior";
o not have committed the offense during a period of separation;
o have no children involved in the dispute; and
o have no more than two -- of a possible seven -- low-risk criteria checked (see
box, "The Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist," p. 62).
This group of offenders is likely to be offered deferred prosecution wherein
they are allowed to enter a guilty plea with the understanding that if they
complete an accredited batterer program and do not reoffend for three years, the
plea will be withdrawn and the charges dropped. The prospect of no criminal
record is often a compelling motivation for first-time batterers who are
professionals or middle-class to complete a program.
Medium-risk offenders are those with more than two low-risk factors, or one or
more medium risk factors (see above). Probation recommends that medium-risk
offenders be sentenced to probation with a condition of program completion and
assigns them to a probation volunteer for close tracking (see chapter 4,
"Current Trends in Batterer Intervention," for a discussion of the use
of volunteers for probation supervision).
High-risk offenders include any batterer with even one high-risk indicator (see
above). For the purposes of intervention, probation divides the high-risk group
into two subgroups:
1. batterers who are out of control despite consequences or interventions, and
2. batterers whose lives are chaotic and dysfunctional and who are obsessed with
their victim.
Those in the first group are not appropriate for participation in batterer
programs; probation recommends that they be incarcerated. The second group,
which is supervised by a specially assigned probation officer with a reduced
caseload, is recommended for both long-term (more than 36 weeks) and intensive
(more than one session per week) program interventions that are structured to
address the challenge of high-risk offenders. Although the court uses several
programs, many of the high-risk offenders are referred to The Third Path, where
Robert McBride, program director, conducts a detailed intake assessment that
identifies offenders with personality disorders so that therapists can better
understand and attempt to change their behaviors.
Probation officers also note on the checklist other factors that may suggest
assigning the offender to a specific intervention, such as the batterer's
gender, sexual orientation, primary language, need for substance abuse or child
abuse treatment, or other special needs. In this manner, the Domestic Violence
Behavioral Checklist integrates assessment of batterer typology and lethality
with assignment to culturally appropriate interventions.
Cultural Specificity: The Influence of Class, Race, and Subculture
Factors that can affect the expression of domestic violence and response to
treatment include socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic identity, country of
origin, and sexual orientation.
o While a national survey of a random sample of married couples found domestic
violence in all social milieux, the survey revealed a higher prevalence among
poorer families.[11] Low-income men may be subject to greater stress in everyday
life, and their lack of economic power and possible financial dependence on
female partners may threaten their sense of masculinity, perhaps increasing the
motive to assert dominance and control through physical violence.
o Wealthy batterers are less visible because they enjoy greater privacy in their
family lives and have more resources for dealing with problems without involving
the police or social services. Should they be prosecuted, they can afford a
private attorney who may get them a lighter sentence, and they can pay for
private counseling or psychotherapy in lieu of a batterer group. Most men in
mandated batterer programs visited for this report had relatively low levels of
income and education.
o Men of color are also mandated to treatment in numbers disproportionate to
their representation in the local population. Researchers attribute this
overrepresentation to a correlation with low socioeconomic status, lingering
discrimination in the criminal justice system, and greater exposure to violence
in the community. Resistance to treatment may be higher among minority men: some
African American men have attributed their being mandated to programs to racism,
a charge that facilitators have had to recognize without accepting it as an
excuse for battering.
o Research suggests that men of color -- including African American and Latino men -- have a lower program
completion rate than other cultural or racial groups.[12] As a result, some
researchers and practitioners have proposed that the effectiveness of
interventions will be enhanced among minority men if programs are not merely
culturally sensitive, but, as discussed below, culturally competent.[13] All the
jurisdictions visited for this report had at least limited access to specialized
treatment groups for batterers of different races, ethnicities, and sexual
orientations, and most -- but not all -- agreed that specialized interventions
enhanced the engagement of batterers in treatment.
Adapting Interventions to Accommodate Differences in Socioeconomic Status
Although no program contacted for this report attempted to segregate its clients
by socioeconomic characteristics, most programs reported concerns about client
poverty and illiteracy.
Program Fees
Most programs offer a sliding scale for program fees. In some cases,
"reasonable" fees and sliding fee scales are mandated by State
standards for batterer programs or accrediting agencies for service providers
(see appendix A). For example, Family Services of Seattle is subsidized by local
government so that their intake fee can be reduced to $25, as compared with the
$45 or more payment required by the majority of batterer programs in Seattle.
Often, however, sliding scales and fee reductions are not enough. In Baltimore,
despite a sliding scale that ranges from $5 per week for those making $198 or
less per month to $65 for those making over $2,400 per month, a large number of
batterers are rejected because they cannot afford to pay.
Program directors report that fees are critical to the survival of most
programs, and no one claims that interventions are profitable. While few
programs contacted for this report rely on a mix of public funding and grants
(see appendix C), the majority rely on payments from batterers for between 40
and 100 percent of their program income. Program directors across the country
also emphasized that some minimum payment for program participation is necessary
so that batterers understand that treatment is valuable and thus develop a
personal investment in its being successful. Nevertheless, requiring mandatory
payments from unemployed or low-income batterers remains controversial. Some
probation officers worry that inability to pay excludes a large number of men
who would otherwise benefit from intervention. Baltimore probation officer
Willie Saunders expressed concern that too many batterers were falling outside
the system: "The sliding scale should go to zero. The unemployed cannot
pay." Saunders suggested that programs might accept "sweat
equity" (that is, working at the program in exchange for program services),
an approach recommended by a number of State standards. Oliver Williams, who
studies batterer intervention with African Americans, expressed concern that
financial issues are used disingenuously to exclude low-income men from
interventions. Williams observed, "If it's a survival issue [for the
program], O.K., or a fine, O.K., but don't say exclusion [for nonpayment] is for
the good of the client." However, program administrators tend to attribute
nonpayment to lack of commitment to program goals. "Anybody can find $5 per
week," one program director said, "Stop smoking. Walk instead of
taking the bus. Borrow it from a friend. If they can document that it's coming
out of food for the children, then we'll talk about it." Wil Avery at
Baltimore's House of Ruth equates program fees with fines and points to their
deterrent effect: "One man who had completed the program came to me and
said, 'You know, I was going to hit my wife, but then I thought of all that
money I'd have to pay again, and I stopped. Then I thought about all the things
you taught us.' "
Program directors and probation officers alike suspect that batterers' refusal
to pay and claims of economic hardship are often used as an easy way out of
batterer intervention. When judges see batterers for failing to register, they
may be swayed by stories of economic hardship and delete the condition of
program attendance from the sentence. In jurisdictions where no alternative
sentences such as community service exist for battering, judges are often
reluctant to jail a batterer for inability to pay. In response to the dearth of
options for indigent batterers, probation officers in Baltimore's domestic
violence intensive supervision unit, the Family Assault Supervision Team or
"FAST Unit," were organizing the Batterers Termination Intervention
Group to provide free in-house batterer treatment to batterers who were rejected
by local programs because of their inability to pay (as well as those terminated
for probation violations or considered too dangerous for community-based
programs).
Literacy
Although many programs assign homework and readings, all contend that their
curriculums can be adapted to suit batterers with poor or no reading and writing
skills. For example, Ina Maka, a Native American intervention in Seattle, has
assembled a wide selection of simply written articles for batterers and their
families. Programs using the Duluth model report assigning homework or reading
lessons in pairs. They do not ask for homework to be turned in, only read aloud
in group. At the House of Ruth, batterers with low literacy levels are
encouraged to draw pictures as their homework assignments and then to
"read" from the pictures. Wil Avery noted that this approach is so
effective that group leaders are sometimes unaware of who is illiterate until
the program evaluation is completed at the end of the course.
With the vocabulary and conceptual complexity of a college-level course, The
Compassion Workshop lectures and homework would be challenging to many
participants; nonetheless, an assistant group facilitator insists that the
material can be made accessible to participants who listen attentively and that
assistants are available to read homework to batterers and to review the program
content. He warned, however, that "participants who can't read probably
won't get as much out of the program." Steven Stosny, originator and
director of The Compassion Workshop, argues that the elevated educational tone
of the course engages batterers by showing respect for their ability to
understand the material and, as they begin to master the somewhat technical
terms and concepts, boosts their self-esteem. Stosny noted that he had
experimented with simplifying the language in the program's curriculum but found
that clients preferred to be challenged.
Culturally Competent Interventions: Addressing Race, Ethnicity, and
Subculture
Minorities have been discouraged from using mainstream social service agencies
by racially or culturally insensitive service provider attitudes and
practices.[14] As a result, minorities often turn for help to informal support
networks such as family and friends, churches, or community-based social service
providers of the same race or ethnicity (many of which are overwhelmed with
requests for assistance or ill-equipped to deal with domestic violence). Oliver
Williams argues that batterer interventions must become "culturally
competent" to retain minority referrals and improve minority participation.
A culturally competent intervention draws on the strengths of the culture,
whether it is spirituality, a value placed on the family, or communal social
systems. The intervention also addresses the weaknesses, such as alcoholism,
harsh child discipline, and gender roles, that condone wife-abuse. Culturally
competent programs have been developed for African Americans, Latinos (with a
distinction drawn between merely bilingual programs and bicultural programs),
Haitians, Asians, Native Americans, and recent immigrants.
Williams defines cultural competence according to two criteria, organizational
behavior and cultural program efforts. Organizational behavior consists of
"activities an organization undertakes to prepare itself to work with a
culturally diverse client population,"[15] such as:
o providing staff with literature concerning effective service delivery to
minorities;
o training staff in distinguishing three approaches to serving minorities --
beginning with culturally destructive approaches, moving to colorblind
approaches, and finally achieving culturally competent delivery of services;
o seeking qualified consultants for conducting staff training if necessary; and
o engaging in self-evaluation and the active implementation of program changes
to achieve cultural competence.[16]
Cultural program efforts are "those activities that not only demonstrate
organizational preparedness to work with culturally different clients, but also
demonstrate a willingness to work with them,"[17] such as outreach
activities to:
o educate the community about the program and its goals;
o show interest in and support for the minority community generally;
o encourage the minority community to utilize batterer treatment services; and
o offer treatment that is sensitive to the needs of the population being served.
Oliver Williams argues that the focus on diversity in batterer interventions may
be seen as falling along a continuum:
o Colorblind interventions believe that focusing on racial or ethnic differences
is inappropriate for batterer interventions, that "differences don't make a
difference."
o Healthy heterogeneous interventions value diversity but operate in a
multicultural or multiracial environment.
o Culturally specific milieu refers to interventions whose participants are
predominantly from one culture or race, so that no special efforts are judged
necessary to ensure open discussion of culture or race-specific issues.
o Culturally focused interventions pay deliberate attention to the historical or
contemporary experiences of a particular cultural or racial group. Cultural
identity is defined and linked to behavior.
o Culturally centered interventions place a particular race or ethnicity's
culture and values at the center of the treatment. Attention is given to
culturally significant rituals.
Tailoring interventions to the needs and values of specific racial, ethnic, or
subcultural groups is consistent with the feminist/social learning perspective.
If battering is in large part the result of learned experiences and cultural
attitudes toward the roles of men and women, then treatment should take the
nature of those experiences and cultural expectations into account. The feminist
model, used by the majority of interventions, takes into account one social
factor related to battering -- sexism -- but other social factors may also
promote violence. For example, Williams argues that the environment of violence
and poverty in which many African American men are raised fosters an association
between manhood and violence.[18] Treatment is more effective, he argues, if
battering is not isolated from relevant psychological and social realities of
membership in a minority group, such as cultural self-hatred, displacement of
anger, "black-on-black violence," suicide, drug abuse, and cultural
codes, including the urge to respond physically if someone appears to be
disrespectful.
Some African American batterers mandated to a program may bring resentment
against the criminal justice system, which has to be addressed before the
participants can be receptive to modifying their behavior. The fact that men of
color are more likely to be arrested and convicted than white male batterers,
especially middle-class white batterers, cannot be allowed to obscure the fact
that the African American batterers need to change their behavior. However,
while the feelings aroused by the racism they have experienced can be a barrier
to effective treatment, once a program acknowledges and deals with those
feelings, it can also provide a springboard for helping participants to
understand the powerlessness and oppression victims experience.
Attempts to modify batterer behavior should also build on the positive values
and strengths of minority cultures. For example, Oliver Williams contends that
telling African American men "You are hurting this woman, and that is why
you should stop" alone will not have as much impact as also saying
"You are hurting your community." Facilitators of minority and
immigrant groups said that deep concern about children and the family was a hook
used to engage court-mandated batterers in treatment. Betty Williams Watson,
cofacilitator of an African American men's group at Family Services of Seattle,
noted that Father's Day was an emotionally charged time for the men in her
group. After participants resurrected anger and hurt at having been abandoned by
their fathers, Watson redirected their attention to the similar behavior they
were inflicting on their own sons and daughters: by being violent, they were
being excluded from the home, effectively abandoning their children.[19]
Another example of recognizing social realities but building on subcultural
strengths is provided by a program for Asian immigrants. Programs emphasize that
while wife abuse may have been acceptable behavior in their country of origin,
they need to obey the laws of their new home. According to a Vietnamese
counselor, as children and wives assimilate, husbands may resort to violence to
retain control and authority in the family. The counselor reasons with the men
that they, too, have adopted new ways, such as dressing and behaving more
informally at work. As immigrants, he points out, they value change and
adaptation. In short, the men are not being left out of their family's
acculturation; the family is growing and changing together.
Groups in which members of a minority culture predominate can create unusually
strong feelings of solidarity, allowing members to provide support to each other
(as well as to challenge each other) during and after meetings. The rituals the
group observes to bring the participants closer and to build trust may vary from
culture to culture. For example, a Latino batterer group begins and ends
meetings by sharing food; a Native American program uses a sweat lodge and other
rituals devoted to healing and cleansing.
In sum, culturally competent interventions have three methods of enhancing the
"one-size-fits-all" approach:
o recognizing and working with the social and psychological realities of
participants without allowing these realities to become an excuse for abuse;
o capitalizing on cultural strengths and values -- such as communality, a belief
in family, and spirituality -- to promote the change process; and
o decreasing the isolation or discrimination that minority batterers may feel in
a culturally heterogeneous group (see below).
The following sections discuss how batterer interventions have been modified to
accommodate race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender.
Batterer Programs for Men of African Descent
Two types of programs that serve men of African descent were visited for this
report:
o programs that provide the option to join an all African American batterer
group; and
o programs that provide only integrated groups.
Among the programs that provided only integrated groups, some were too small, or
the percentage of minority clients too few, to support a separate racial group.
By contrast, the House of Ruth in Baltimore, whose clientele is predominantly
African American, chose an integrated group structure on the grounds that to
focus on race or any other issue that is batterer-specific, such as
psychological background or socioeconomic class, distracts from the central
issue of addressing the violent behavior. For example, group leaders at the
House of Ruth observe that the Duluth curriculum's "Power and Control
Wheel" (see exhibit 1-1) cuts across all racial or ethnic identities and
religious beliefs. John Miller, an African American group facilitator, summed up
their viewpoint as follows: "Different cultural backgrounds are no barrier
in group. In fact, diversity is a plus because the topic has nothing to do with
socioeconomic or race issues. Our exit interviews with program graduates
emphasize the importance of learning from the other men -- regardless of their
race or backgrounds." In his experience, the men in group benefited from
seeing the common elements of abusive behavior across all cultures and
socioeconomic classes. According to Miller, the presence of batterers from
different races, cultures, and social classes in group was a great leveler that
demonstrated that no group was exempt from abusing women and that allowed no
group to feel superior to any other.
While the House of Ruth's approach is theoretically very different from the
culturally competent approaches Oliver Williams advocates, in practice the
contrast is not so stark. The batterer group observed for this report was 80
percent African American and was facilitated by an African American woman and
man. Although no issues relating to race or African American culture were raised
by the men or the facilitators, group facilitators and the program director
provided numerous examples of ways in which the material is changed to better
suit African American culture when appropriate. Program director Wil Avery, who
is African American and a church deacon, emphasized that his understanding of
African American culture and southern culture allows him to present the Duluth
curriculum in a context that has relevance to African Americans. The House of
Ruth is also involved in outreach efforts to the minority community, a step
toward cultural competence recommended by Williams.
Sunya Faloyan, cofounder of the Empowerment Project, a partnership in Charlotte,
North Carolina, holds the opposite view: "In mixed groups men can talk
about cultural differences as a way to avoid identifying with the other men in
group and escape responsibility." Chuck Turner, an African American group
educator at EMERGE, where African American groups are available after the
initial eight-week orientation, agrees: "An African American group allows
men to focus on what they did instead of social injustice or racism. It also
removes attitudinal obstacles for African American men, such as negative
'self-talk' about the orientation of a white counselor." Turner gave an
example of how an African American group can enhance program participation:
"One twenty-three- year-old African American man who served three years in
jail for drugs was talkative but clownish in [the mixed race] intake group. In
the ongoing African American group, he opened up and talked more seriously about
gang activity -- he was capable of a better discussion." Betty Williams
Watson, cofacilitator of the African American men's group at Family Services of
Seattle, noted that she has instant credibility with an African American group
but that she still needs to address the issue of racism before they can focus on
violence: "The men say to me, 'How dare you betray us? Don't you know about
racism? You know how we've been treated, what the system has done to us.' I say,
'Yes, but you're beating up women.' "
Sunya Faloyan gave the example of a mixed group in North Carolina, facilitated
by African Americans, in which African Americans were both ridiculed and feared:
"The black men in the group were laborers and usually came dressed
informally. One night a black man came dressed in a suit; the facilitator and
the white batterers ridiculed him, laughing and saying 'You must think you're
really big.' As long as [the African Americans] were laughing it was all right,
but when they got serious it was very threatening to whites." Faloyan
explained, "Society is accustomed to seeing black men act as comics or
holding a lower position in society. According to society, this is a comfortable
role for black men. Whenever black men are seen as acting out of that role it is
seen as a threat by society. Black curriculum is important to African Americans
because it enables them to construct their own existence and reality (rather
than accept the constructs and limitations placed on them by society)."
Because of their concerns that racism can obstruct batterer treatment, Faloyan
and cofounder Radhia Jaabar have developed a still-evolving specialized
curriculum for men of African descent, the Kinship Journey. The central themes
of the curriculum are that violence against one's partner is violence against
oneself (reflecting the traditional African view that men and women are part of
one another), spirituality, and the concept of the extended family. The
curriculum is structured around Seven Pathways: personhood; family; tradition;
black masculinity; collective consciousness; grief, anger, and trust; and
spirituality. The men in group supply much of the content under each heading,
and the struggle to define each heading leads to discussion. The Kinship Journey
also makes use of the Duluth curriculum's videos and role-playing. Jaaber, a
consultant to the National Training Project in Minnesota, which markets the
Duluth curriculum, is currently piloting the Kinship Journey curriculum around
the country.
Outreach to the African American community can be a slow and frustrating
process. Watson points out that "the sense of community is stronger among
African Americans, but community support for batterers works against treatment
because the community is often tolerant of or turns a blind eye to
battering." As a consultant for the Breaking the Silence program, a
domestic violence awareness program for African American communities, Watson
invited 25 churches, which she considers to be the "lifeblood of the
community," to a training session on domestic violence issues. While
parishioners from 20 churches came, most of them were women and few were
ministers. Watson has encountered hostility from the religious community for
raising the issue of domestic violence: "One minister told me, 'All our
families are happy and sound. You don't come here.' " In her own church,
however, Watson is making some headway, posting information in the men's and
women's restrooms and in the church foyer and displaying domestic violence
awareness materials, such as drawings from children with fathers who batter,
letters from batterers to victims, and pictures of a batterer being arrested.
Asian Batterer Groups: Issues for Recent Immigrants
EMERGE in Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Domestic Abuse Intervention Service
(DAIS), in Des Moines, Iowa, and the Refugee Women's Alliance in Seattle offer
specialized groups for Asian batterers, most of whom are recent immigrants from
Cambodia or Vietnam. Unlike other batterer interventions, counseling for Asian
immigrants either begins with individual counseling because of cultural barriers
to speaking openly in a group, or is entirely one- on-one. For example, at
EMERGE, Cambodian batterers are counseled individually at first and then moved
into small groups of three or four men once the counselor has established trust
that he would not humiliate the man in front of his peers. The Vietnamese
counselor at EMERGE works with men individually to avoid humiliating them in
Boston's tight-knit Vietnamese community. At DAIS, one multilingual Vietnamese
counsels most Asian batterers individually because of similar concerns regarding
privacy and humiliation (although he does run a small Laotian group). By
contrast, at Seattle's Refugee Women's Alliance, five groups of Asian and other
immigrant batterers have been counseled using a complicated system of
interpreters. One group, composed of one Cambodian and nine Vietnamese, was
conducted in English in order to accommodate the American cofacilitator; another
group, composed of five Vietnamese, one Russian, two English-speaking Filipinos,
and two English-speaking Laotians, was conducted in English with interpreters
for the Russians and Vietnamese. The counselor, Minh-Phuong La Nguyen, claims
that family and community roles are similar across Southeast Asia, so the group
approach, although slow and difficult with interpreters, works for most clients.
Program directors emphasized the importance of having a native speaker
facilitate Asian batterer groups. Counselors who can anticipate and address a
client's cultural assumptions are better equipped than American-born counselors
to work with Asian batterers. There was a clear consensus among counselors
working with Asian immigrants that this population could not participate
effectively in the standard Duluth-style intervention because of a number of
cultural and psychological characteristics common to many of them, especially an
aversion to group work and an abhorrence of confrontation.
Respected counselors become "elders." Counselors noted the importance
of securing and keeping the client's respect; they advised counselors of Asian
batterers to be formal and firm in their initial dealings with clients. Once a
tone of respect is established, Asian immigrant batterers uniformly regard
counselors -- who in the programs visited for this report were all Asian
immigrants themselves -- as "elders" who have assumed the authority
figure role of uncles or grandfathers left behind. Counselors also represent the
force of the American legal system and serve both as models of assimilation and
as experts on American laws, beliefs, and customs. Asian counselors noted that,
with the loss of their elders, most recent immigrants have lost their sense of
community, making it incumbent on counselors to rebuild their sense of community
and collective conscience. As a result, Asian counselors report a much higher
personal involvement in the lives of their clients than ordinary group leaders
would exercise: counselors explore batterers' experiences as political detainees
or victims of torture, discuss pressing personal concerns such as family members
left behind in Asia against their will or problems with child rearing and
discipline, and even assist with solving practical problems such as filing taxes
and registering cars.
Domestic problems are regarded as a private matter. According to the Asian
counselors, throughout Southeast Asia, domestic abuse is regarded as a private
matter not to be discussed in public and also as socially acceptable behavior.
Minh-Phuong La Nguyen notes that in Vietnam the community either ignored
domestic violence or regarded it as a source of humor. Some Asian batterers have
enormous difficulty accepting that these behaviors are illegal in the United
States; according to Peter Oeur, a Cambodian counselor at EMERGE, 90 percent of
the men he counsels do not understand the concept of emotional or sexual abuse.
Furthermore, because it was legal in Cambodia for a man to take two or three
wives, Oeur says, American notions of gender equality are difficult for both
husbands and wives to accept. At DAIS, the counselor tells the batterers that
there is no shame in getting help from outside the family because there is
nowhere else to turn, given their loss of the extended family that served as an
important support system in their home country. In their home country, the wife
was expected to stay at home and run the household; in America, the counselor
insists, both parents often have to work to raise a family, so there is no shame
in the wife having contact with people outside the family.
Confrontation is culturally inappropriate. All Asian counselors interviewed for
this report had evolved a similar nonconfrontational, Socratic method of
counseling Asian batterers that relies heavily on metaphors, parables, and
analogies, allowing the men to distance the discussion from themselves. Oeur
avoids labeling one culture or legal system as "right" and another
"wrong," instead comparing "the Cambodian way and the American
way," with special emphasis on the importance of human equality. He asks
batterers what they think is right, leading with questions like, "Do you
think your wife is happy?" Similarly, Dinh Pham, EMERGE counselor to
Vietnamese batterers, asks the men, "How do you think domestic violence
affects your children?" Phuong describes the situation of a hypothetical
wife in an abusive relationship and asks the men, "How would you
feel?" After five to eight weeks, Oeur may confront a client who is still
blaming the victim or denying abuse, but he is careful to build a strong
relationship with the client first.
Women and children assimilate more easily. All four counselors noted that Asian
clients feel powerless and threatened by the more rapid assimilation of their
wives and children. Phuong reported that his Asian clients say, "I came
here, I lost everything, my wife changed. My wife is into new things. I slap her
a little. She calls the police." In response, he reminds them of American
laws and values and gives concrete examples of how the men are changing too.
Several counselors reported building on their clients' desires to learn how to
cope with their children's new behaviors to keep them in counseling and build
more rapport; some clients still attend EMERGE voluntarily after 40 weeks in
order to learn nonviolent parenting skills.
Police are feared and distrusted. Many immigrants arriving from Asia have lived
under repressive regimes or have experienced persecution by the police or the
military. As a result, many are fearful of contact with the criminal justice
system. The impact of this fear on batterer treatment is twofold: the batterer
may feel that the arrest was unjustified, but he is nonetheless likely to comply
with the court sentence in order to avoid any further contact. Asian counselors
reported generally low attrition from treatment. One man reported that following
his arrest he was "scared to death. I told myself, 'I'll never do this
again. I'd rather run away from my wife than get rearrested,' " even though
he still thought that there was nothing wrong with domestic violence.
Latino or Spanish-Speaking Batterer Groups
EMERGE and DAIS both offer Spanish language groups for batterers. In Seattle,
Spanish-speaking probationers are generally referred to a neighborhood-based
counseling service, Consejo Counseling. Providers of Spanish language and
homogeneously grouped Latino batterer interventions raise two issues in this
regard.
Latinos who speak Spanish represent diverse nationalities and cultures. Although
they share a common language, the range of dialects, accents, and cultural norms
attributable to Spanish speakers in America is extremely broad. Efforts to make
a batterer intervention curriculum relevant to Spanish-speaking Latinos can
flounder on the question of which culture to portray. For example, EMERGE's four
batterer groups were led by a Nicaraguan and included Panamanians, Dominicans,
Mexicans, Uraguayans, and American-born Spanish speakers. Oswaldo Montoya of
EMERGE explained that beyond language, his clients share their identity as
immigrants, economic instability, and low literacy in their native language.
While advocates of ethnically sensitive interventions recommend that the group
leader's nationality be the same as that of the participants, as a practical
matter this is often not feasible. For example, in Des Moines, because of a lack
of qualified native speakers, DAIS hired a white female counselor who is fluent
in Spanish but is not a native speaker. In Denver, the demand for bilingual
workers has made it economically impossible for AMEND to hire appropriate staff,
despite an out-of-state search. The short supply of culturally compatible
facilitators is a serious issue for Latino batterer interventions, since the
true focus of the specialized curriculum is culture, rather than language.
Latino values vary according to age. Counselors reported a cultural gap between
young male Latinos and older Latino men. Young Latino men were considered by
counselors to be less family- oriented, more dependent on male friends who
portray positive ties with women as a weakness, and more violent. Montoya
reported that the older men in group were critical of the younger men's
preoccupation with friends over family. He noted that many of the younger
batterers displayed limited moral development -- for example, more interest in
not getting caught than in giving up the violence.
Strategies that programs use with Latino groups include:
o discussing the batterer's distortion of the concept of "machismo,"
which originally meant "he who tenderly cares for his family," and the
glorification of abusive behavior as an expression of manhood, especially to
other men;
o challenging ownership of the partner by, among other techniques, requiring the
batterer to call her by her first name instead of "my wife" (a
technique common to many mainstream interventions);
o countering excuses for battering based on cultural practices in their native
country by letting the group know that they understand the batterer's
perspective, that they too grew up with the same system, but that battering is
illegal in this country; and
o spending more time discussing and learning to understand the complicated
family ties of clients, some of whom have had two or three marriages or
cohabitations, have children from different unions, or have children and family
living in other countries.
Native American Approaches to Batterer Intervention
Only one jurisdiction visited for the report had a batterer program based on
Native American traditional practices and beliefs. Ina Maka (United Indians of
All Tribes Foundation) in Seattle uses a holistic family preservation model (one
that provides child protection, victim services, and sexual abuse counseling as
well as batterer intervention) combined with Native American practices such as
family counseling by kias ("grandmas" who provide home-based support
and advice to struggling families), sweat lodges, and smudging (a cleansing
ritual). Ina Maka also uses case management, individual therapy, education
(including GED classes), job assistance, parenting classes, art therapy, and
role-playing in its work with batterers. Ina Maka considers victim safety to be
the highest priority but places almost equal emphasis on its other work: victim
assistance, sexual abuse therapy for both victims and batterers, child welfare,
and drug and alcohol abuse therapy. To Ina Maka, each of these emphases is
critical to family preservation.
Although their program is designed to serve Native Americans, it includes white,
African American, and recent immigrant batterers because in Seattle batterers
may choose which intervention they wish to attend from an approved list provided
by probation. Dan Brewer, a group facilitator, commented that although groups
are integrated racially and culturally, he has no difficulty addressing issues
of race and oppression: "If they say the system isn't fair, we agree. But
we say, 'There are no accidents; there's a part you played to get you here.'
" Brewer tries to keep the focus on the batterer and his behavior without
discounting the cultural context: "We'll talk about the genocide of Native
American people, and draw parallels to slavery; both are colonialism. We'll talk
about, 'What did it do to the family?' But we are very careful to keep people
off pulpits. We are after knowledge and understanding, not blame. Why are Mom
and Dad and Grandpa and Grandma the way they are? That happened. Now, what are
we going to do about it?"
Following an extensive daylong intake evaluation that includes a detailed
history of abuse in the current relationship and the family of origin,
psychological assessment, and drug and alcohol screening, batterers participate
in a three-part, 42-week program.
o Phase I (12 weeks) focuses on anger management, violent behavior, and feelings
associated with domestic violence.
o Phase II (24 weeks) treats core issues related to family violence (e.g.,
power, control, and belief systems).
o Phase III (6 biweekly sessions) provides aftercare and support in mixed gender
groups.
Sexual abuse is a major topic or personal problem for batterers in treatment at
Ina Maka: all the female batterers enrolled in the program's first female group
were victims of sexual abuse (see below, "Heterosexual Female
Batterers"). Male batterers who were victims of sexual abuse are excused
from program fees and may be targeted for individual counseling. Each batterer
is required to meet with a therapist individually once a month to discuss issues
he or she may not be talking about in group. Like Asian counselors, group
leaders at Ina Maka take a less confrontational approach with batterers.
According to Arlene Red Oak, case manager and group facilitator, "It's O.K.
for them to be in denial. They want to work toward having healthy
families." Although Ina Maka uses a family systems model, it stops short of
couples counseling, telling victims who request therapy together, "No,
you'd kill each other." Although program facilitators report that
illiteracy is not a problem, program materials are geared to low literacy
levels.
Heterosexual Female Batterers
Batterer interventions for heterosexual female batterers (who are frequently
referred to as "female defendants" by practitioners because of the
large proportion of self-defending and angry victims in this classification) are
still relatively rare (see appendix D.5, "Assessment Questionnaire for
Female Offenders "), but all the jurisdictions visited for this report
recognized the need for special programming for female batterers. Tina Busey,
director of the Court- Referred Women's Program at Counseling Services in Denver
has, over the last 12 years, formulated a specialized program to serve this
difficult population most effectively.[22] Busey has identified four types of
female batterers:
o Self-Defending Victims. These women have multiple injuries, a history of
victimization, and have been threatened with injury or murder if they attempt to
leave the relationship. The partners of self-defending victims typically have
minor injuries, such as scratches or bites.[23] Police failure to identify the
primary physical aggressor properly at the time of the arrest -- or the belief
that they are required to arrest both parties -- brings these victims into the
criminal justice system.
o Mutually Combatant Women. Approximately 2 to 3 percent of female defendants
arrested for battering are in relationships in which both partners attempt to
inflict injury equally on the other, but neither party has ever been threatened
with murder or sexual abuse.
o Primary Physical Aggressors. Approximately 2 percent of women arrested for
domestic violence are the primary physical aggressors. In these cases, there are
injuries to the man and none to the woman, and the man has been threatened with
injury or murder if he attempts to end the relationship.[24]
o Angry Victims. Angry victims have been abused in the current relationship and
in other relationships as adults. Angry victims begin fighting back and do not
wish to be victims again.
Busey attributes the frequency with which police arrest self-defending victims
to the sometimes confusing behaviors a victim may display to police. For
example, the victim may feel safe to express her own anger after the police have
arrived, or the victim may express anger toward the police because the justice
system failed to protect her in the past. Victims suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) may have angry outbursts or take aggressive postures --
such as picking up a knife -- which they feel are necessary in order to
survive.[25] Hamberger and Potente's research in Wisconsin shares this
conclusion: "Research with the community sample of domestically violent
[women] indicated most were motivated by a need to defend themselves from their
partner's assaults, or are retaliating for previous beatings."[26]
Hamberger and Potente conclude that domestic violence by women is fundamentally
different from violence committed by men and therefore requires a different
intervention model.
Busey's model of intervention for female defendants at Counseling Services
includes working with female defendants on the following areas:
o safety plans;
o lethality checklists;
o family of origin (exposure to violence);
o the cycle of violence;
o victimization/revictimization;
o post-traumatic stress disorder;
o anger and stress management;
o substance abuse treatment, if appropriate;
o parenting;
o women's socialization; and
o healthy adult relationships.[27]
Busey recommends that this treatment be conducted either individually or in
same-sex groups. She does not recommend couples therapy for female defendants,
both because it may escalate the conflict and because it is prohibited by the
Colorado Standards for Service Provision to Battered Women.
Countering the Specialized Programming Trend: The Compassion Workshop
One new cognitive behavioral intervention based on attachment theory challenges
the trend toward increased specialization in batterer intervention. The
Compassion Workshop of Prince George's County, Maryland, founded by psychologist
Steven Stosny, locates the origin of battering and child abuse in the abuser's
use of anger to avoid feeling the more painful emotions of shame or distress,
which the abuser may experience as being disregarded, devalued, rejected,
powerless, unlovable, unimportant, accused, guilty, or unfit for contact. Stosny
labels these painful emotions "core hurts." He employs a cognitive
restructuring technique called HEALS (HEALS is an acronym for the steps of the
cognitive restructuring approach: Healing, Explain to yourself, Apply self-
compassion, Love yourself, Solve) to short-circuit the anger batterers feel in
order to smother these more painful feelings before it develops, replacing the
anger with compassion for oneself and one's partner or child (see exhibit 4-2).
According to Stosny, abusive behavior begins with inappropriate reactions to a
perceived emotional threat posed by the victim: "I have never met a
dominant, controlling attachment abuser who did not feel that he was reacting to
some form of manipulation, domination, and control by the victim; they
inevitably feel manipulated by their own guilt."[28] Stosny postulates that
if the abuser can learn to feel worthy of support and love
("self-compassion") even in difficult situations, this lays the
groundwork for feeling positive emotions of attachment toward others, such as
trust, intimacy, and commitment.
The Compassion Workshop is a didactic, future- oriented, training program
consisting of 12 two- hour sessions and 43 homework assignments. During the
first 6 sessions, clients do not share their experiences in class, only in their
homework. Stosny reasons, "Given the number of personality disorders among
abusers, 'sharing experience' tends to involve complaining, arguing, and
confrontation, until clients learn to say what they need to say to get out of
treatment, at which point their reflexive manipulation grows more
subtle."[29] During this period, clients also sign agreements to be
nonviolent and not to address any "hot issues" at home. Clients are
also given instruction concerning time-outs and asked to formulate safety plans
to use until they are fully trained in the HEALS method. The first six weeks of
instruction focus on the development of internal skills, such as emotional
regulation (including the concept that controlling others cannot satisfy one's
emotional needs), self- empowerment, and building self-esteem. The second six
weeks focus on applying these skills to relationship issues, such as avoiding
power struggles, developing relationship skills (e.g., regulating fear of
abandonment and fear of engulfment, closeness and distance, resentment and
intimacy), and creating plans for the future. At the final session, participants
read aloud their "healing letters" in which they apologize to all
their victims and acknowledge the destructiveness of their past behaviors,
outline the steps of their recovery, and list what they need to do to continue
their recovery. The letters are intended both as an acknowledge-ment of past
abuse and as a relapse prevention tool to re-view during vulnerable periods. By
postponing the batterer's admission of violence to the end of the program,
Stosny claims that the letters are composed voluntarily, without compulsion.
The program uses two short films, Shadows of the Heart and Compassion. The first
film, which shows domestic violence through the eyes of a five-year- old who
feels responsible for his mother's victimization, is used to break down
resistance to treatment and to stimulate a feeling of compassion among clients.
Clients are asked to focus on how they could help the child; the compassionate
feelings evoked by the film are then used as an example to show that compassion
is a more positive emotion than anger and is more likely to build self-esteem.
The second film depicts how compassionate behavior can create a greater sense of
personal power than violence.
Advantages and Criticisms of the Compassion Workshop Approach
A pilot study, using random assignment of court- ordered spouse abusers to the
Compassion Workshop and to five other batterer programs in Maryland and Virginia
(all of which used some form of the feminist power and control model), found
that, based on victim reports, 87 percent of Compassion Workshop participants
were violence free (no pushing, shoving, grabbing) at the end of one year,
compared with 41 percent of the comparison group participants. Seventy-one
percent of the Compassion Workshop participants were reported to have avoided
any verbal aggression, while only 25 percent of the comparison group were no
longer verbally abusive. One-year follow-up data on 161 court-ordered men and
women produced similar results: 87 percent of the Compassion Workshop
participants were violence free and 76 percent were not verbally abusive.30 The
results have raised concerns in the field because they are based on a small
sample and because the outcome data rely solely on victim reports (not on arrest
data). Because a large percentage of abusers are no longer in a relationship
with their original victim during and after treatment, the success rates based
on victim reports are likely to be inflated; arrest data would help to provide a
fuller -- but still not complete -- picture of batterer behavior. Nonetheless,
this design flaw (reliance on victim reports) is common to both the Compassion
Workshop data and those of the comparison programs, so it cannot account for the
discrepancy in success rates between the two.
The Compassion Workshop session observed for this report covered problem-solving
strategies, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in victims
(including why partners should not misinterpret PTSD symptoms as a further
rejection), and healthy ways to regulate intimacy in a relationship. There was
some group discussion focusing on recent situations in which clients had used
skills from the program to avoid violence. Although the presentation of program
concepts was at a college level -- and the clients included an immigrant with
limited English as well as working- class whites and African Americans -- most
of the clients appeared to be engaged by the material and all were respectful of
the group facilitators and each other. (Stosny reports a program completion rate
of 77 percent.) In contrast to most other groups observed for this report, which
were typically all-male and cofacilitated by a professional male/female
counseling team, this was a mixed gender group cofacilitated by Stosny and a
volunteer couple (a former batterer who is a graduate of the Compassion Workshop
and his wife and former victim, whose role it is to provide the victim's
perspective on the material). A victim who was voluntarily attending the same
group as her estranged husband commented that the program had helped her to heal
herself and rebuild self- esteem. She found the format nonthreatening and
appeared at ease in the presence of the mandated clients. The most marked
difference in the Compassion Workshop group setting as compared to others
observed for this report was the absence of confrontation, hostility, denial, or
"side- tracking" by the clients.
Compassion Workshop is controversial because it includes male and female
heterosexual batterers, gay and lesbian batterers, victims, and child abusers in
the same program; allows abusers to postpone admission of abuse; allows passive
participation; avoids confrontation; downplays the sociological context of abuse
(such as sexism or racism); and uses a short treatment period (at a time when
treatment for longer than a year is becoming a goal for many practitioners).
Nonetheless, further evaluation is warranted to determine whether the low
recidivism rates reported by victims are supported by arrest data. It is also
important to determine whether the Compassion Workshop model can be effectively
facilitated by other trained group leaders, not only by Stosny himself.
Conclusion
The search for effective batterer interventions has led researchers and
practitioners alike to look beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. The
innovations discussed in this chapter should not be regarded as mutually
exclusive alternatives; instead, specialized approaches may be seen as
refinements of practice that can work together to improve program retention and
effectiveness. For example, criminal-justice-based typologies -- focusing on
previous offenses and arrests, substance abuse histories, and basic demographic
data -- show promise as a tool for judges, prosecutors, and probation officers
to assess risk and assign batterers appropriate sentences, including
incarceration, intensive probation, or participation in programs specializing in
high- risk offenders. Programs accepting high-risk offenders may benefit from
intake assessments that include psychological evaluations to enable them to
couple psychological or substance abuse counseling with their standard
curriculum. All programs may be able to improve program retention and decrease
resistance to treatment by adopting culturally sensitive approaches that
accommodate differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic status. Finally, recent research in the area of batterer typology,
which points to severe personality disorders in a quarter of the batterer
population, may encourage practitioners to be more open to the combined use of
educational and psychotherapeutic models with some batterers.[31] As the notion
that all batterers are the same -- and should receive the same intervention --
gives way to research that argues for a multiplicity of batterer profiles,
practitioners from all theoretical camps need to reconsider the notion that only
one intervention approach can be valid. Finally, because it is not yet
conclusive which -- if any -- of the current approaches are effective in
deterring battering, State standards and guidelines need to provide a safe
framework for testing innovative intervention strategies as well as scope for
the development and implementation of specialized batterer interventions such as
those discussed in this chapter.
Endnotes
1. In 1988, Hamberger and Hastings published a review of clinical studies of
batterers, which concluded that more effective interventions can be designed by
integrating biological and psychological factors. The same year, Mary Russell
also published a literature review concluding that treatment decisions should be
made on the basis of typologies determined by psychopathology, severity, and
context of violence. Hamberger, K. L. and J. E. Hastings, "Personality
Characteristics of Spouse Abusers: A Controlled Comparison," Violence and
Victims, 3 (1988): 31- 48; Russell, M., "Wife Assault Theory, Research, and
Treatment: A Literature Review," Journal of Family Violence, 3 (3) (1988):
193-208.
2. Gondolf, E.W. and J. Hannekenn, "The Gender Warrior: Reformed Batterers
on Abuse, Treatment, and Change," Journal of Family Violence, 2 (2),
(1987): 177-191.
3. Gondolf, E., "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems: A
Summary of Preliminary Findings," Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic Addiction
Training Institute, October 24, 1996.
4. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. and G. L. Stuart, "Typology of Male Batterers:
Three Subtypes and the Differences Among Them," Psychological Bulletin, 116
(3), (1994): 476-497. Browne, K., D.G. Saunders, and K.M. Staecker,
"Process- Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter: Description of a Brief
Treatment Model," University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.
5. Dutton, D. and S. Golant, The Batterer: A Psychological Profile, New York:
Basic Books, 1995.
6. Hamberger and Hastings, "Personality Characteristics of Spouse
Abusers."
7. Goldkamp, J.S., "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence
and Its Treatment: Dade County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment," Final
Report, Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute, June 1996.
8. Goldkamp, "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic
Violence."
9. Gondolf, "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems,"
4.
10. Goldkamp, "The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic
Violence," 202.
11. Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in
the American Family, New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1980.
12. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22, 1996. Preliminary results from
Gondolf's four-site study found that African Americans were 13 percent more
likely to drop out of treatment by three months.
13. Williams, O., "Ethnically Sensitive Practice to Enhance Treatment
Participation of African American Men Who Batter," Families in Society: The
Journal of Contemporary Human Services, (1992): 588-595.
14. Williams, O. and L. Becker, "Domestic Partner Abuse Treatment Programs
and Cultural Competence: The Results of a National Survey," Violence and
Victims, 9 (3) (1994): 287-296.
15. Ibid., 289.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Williams, "Ethnically Sensitive Practice."
19. Cultural traits discussed in this chapter may also be prevalent among
nonminority batterers; however, program staff interviewed for this report
emphasized these topics in the context of minority intervention.
20. Dutton, D., "Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,"
Violence and Victims, 9 (2) (1994): 167-182.
21. Morgaine Wilder speaking at the Preconference Institute on Lesbian and Gay
Domestic Violence, National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference, Seattle,
Washington, August 31, 1996.
22. Busey, T., "Treatment of Women Defendants," The Catalyst (Spring
1993): 3-4; Busey, T., "Women Defendants and Reactive Survival
Syndrome," The Catalyst (Winter 1993): 6-7.
23. Sue, H., "Women as Defendants," Applied Group Research, University
of Denver, May 22, 1989, cited in T. Busey, "Women Defendants and Reactive
Survival Syndrome."
24. Busey, "Women Defendants and Reactive Survival Syndrome," 6.
25. Ibid.
26. Hamberger, K.L. and T. Potente, "Counseling Heterosexual Women Arrested
for Domestic Violence: Implication for Theory and Practice," Violence and
Victims, 9 (2)(1994): 125-137.
27. Busey, "Treatment of Women Defendants."
28. Stosny, S., "Treating Attachment Abuse: The Compassion Workshop,"
in Treating Abusiveness, ed. D. Dutton, New York: Guilford, 1996.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Gondolf, "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems";
Saunders, D., "Feminist- Cognitive-Behavioral and Process-Psychodynamic
Treatments for Men Who Batter: Interaction of Abuser Traits and Treatment
Models," Draft, University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.
--------------------------------
Key Points
o Many researchers and practitioners have concluded that a
"one-size-fits-all" intervention cannot accommodate the diverse
population of batterers entering the criminal justice system.
o The development of more specialized approaches to batterer intervention is not
in conflict with the trend toward the development of State standards or
certification criteria for batterer interventions, so long as those standards
allow for a diversity of responsible programming.
o Two new trends in batterer intervention reflect the perceived need for more
specialized approaches:
-- interventions tailored to specific types of batterers (batterer typology),
such as high-risk offenders, those with psychological problems, or substance
abusers; and
-- interventions with curriculums or program policies intended to accommodate
sociocultural differences in batterers, such as poverty, poor literacy, race,
ethnicity, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation.
o By contrast, the originator of one new cognitive-behavioral intervention
argues that the problems of diverse batterers can be addressed in a
"one-size-fits-all" format that treats heterosexual male and female
batterers, gay and lesbian batterers, victims, and child abusers with one
didactic cognitive-behavioral curriculum.
--------------------------------
Typologies Focusing on Rage
Roland Maiuro, of the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, has argued for a
clinical diagnosis of "intermittent explosive disorder" for some
batterers. A small proportion of batterers explode with rage. Research points to
some offenders who are either generally violent toward everyone or who
episodically lack impulse control toward both intimate partners and other
people.
However, as a practical matter, this type of batterer frequently is already
receiving specialized treatment. A number of probation departments consider
batterers with extensive histories of violent criminal behavior or domestic
violence inappropriate for traditional batterer programs, recommending instead
incarceration, intensive probation, or very long-term, intensive interventions
that incorporate psychological evaluation and counseling. Similarly, many
standard programs already integrate an "anger management" component,
which uses readings and cognitive-behavioral exercises designed to help men
recognize the physiological signs of anger and develop skills to reduce arousal
and avoid violent behavior.
Maiuro suggests that this approach may be especially helpful with batterers who
are diagnosed as having intermittent explosive disorder. However, programs need
to make clear to batterers with this diagnosis that what may appear to be
uncontrollable anger may in fact be controllable with cognitive-behavioral
techniques, so that they do not use the diagnosis as an excuse for battering
(see "Prohibited Methods/Theories" in appendix A.3, "State
Standards Matrix").
--------------------------------
The Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist
The Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist, a copyrighted assessment tool
developed by Michael Lindsey, founder of AMEND and The Third Path, and Frank
Robinson, a consultant clinical social worker to the Department of Probation in
the 18th Judicial District outside of Denver, Colorado, is a compilation of
weighted psychological and criminal justice risk indicators intended to classify
the batterer for the purposes of assignment to specialized or mainstream
interventions (see chapter 6, "Sources of Help and Information").
o Low-risk factors: a child custody dispute; multiple relationships
(cohabitations/ marriages);arrests for nondomestic violence disturbance; and
dysfunction in school, work, finances, or other relationships (e.g., few
friends).
o Medium-risk factors: having lost contact with one's children; restricted
visitation with one's children; multiple separations; a partner who left
hurriedly with no warning; a volatile relationship; aggressive victim-blaming;
arrests with an underlying domestic -violence basis; a criminal history apart
from domestic violence; violation of a restraining order; no friends or an
alienated family; an admitted pattern of abusive behavior; multiple charges over
a short period of time; a family history of mental illness, violence, substance
abuse, child abuse, or multiple living arrangements; admission of guilt to a
lesser charge than the crime; or suicidal thoughts.
o High-risk factors: batterers who
are looking for their partners; have difficulty eating, sleeping, or working;
commit offenses while separated; have other domestic-violence-related arrests;
stalk their victims; were on probation at the time of arrest; are suicidal or
homicidal; have a history of substance abuse or were intoxicated at the time of
the offense; deny any crime; or refuse to "let their partner go."
--------------------------------
Gay and Lesbian Batterer Intervention
Batterer intervention for gays and lesbians is still in its infancy, and its
development suffers in part from efforts by practitioners and academics to place
gay and lesbian battering behaviors into a familiar theoretical framework. For
example, Donald Dutton and others contend that the very existence of battering
in lesbian relationships disproves the feminist theory that domestic violence is
gender-based.[20] Some feminist practitioners who run groups for lesbian
batterers respond that male and female roles underpin even same-sex intimate
violence. Other theorists argue that in same-sex relationships, hierarchies
based on cultural identity derived from class and race may replace gender as the
focus of dominant and power-seeking behaviors. Still others argue for the need
to take into account personality characteristics as well as societal influences.
Perhaps as a result of this lack of theoretical consensus, services for gay and
lesbian batterers have been slow to develop. Another factor delaying the
development of services among homosexuals is the considerable reluctance to have
the problem of partner violence revealed to the public; many feel the problem
should be handled within the gay community lest it contribute to negative
stereotypes.
A number of differences between homosexual and heterosexual batterers have
treatment implications. For example, more homosexual batterers, especially
lesbians, are self-referred because they are unhappy with their own behavior and
its consequences. In part, lesbian batterers' readiness to recognize that their
violence is a problem they must change may result from their socialization as
females; physical violence conflicts with the stereotypical female sex role.
According to treatment providers, women are more anxious to improve the quality
of their intimate relationships. Disclosure of psychological and family issues
is also easier for women. In general, women are more likely than men to seek
therapy for any issue. The facilitator of a "women defendants" group
(a term used to denote women charged with battering men) said that, unlike the
men's group she facilitates, women are eager to participate and volunteer to
remain in the group after their court mandate ends.
Several providers of services to lesbian batterers believe that these women find
intimacy threatening because of childhood molestation, so they lash out with
violence as a defense against closeness. Indeed, Morgaine Wilder, facilitater of
lesbian batterer groups in Berkeley, California, says that over 70 percent of
the women she treats are victims of childhood sexual abuse.[21] For these women,
in addition to stopping the violence, the program must also treat the trauma.
Some providers of batterer interventions to lesbians feel that this underlying
issue must be treated in individual therapy.
As with racial minorities, the question arises whether there should be separate
groups for homosexual batterers. Negative experiences that are similar to
problems faced by minority men were reported for lesbians placed in heterosexual
male batterer groups: although lesbians can "do the work," they are
unable to be open and trusting in the group or to form the peer bonds that allow
group members to challenge and support each other. Some gay male batterers can
succeed in heterosexual batterer groups if the program is supportive, makes the
theoretical connections between homophobia and sexism, and considers it part of
the program mission to address homophobia. However, many gay men do not feel
comfortable in heterosexual batterer groups, and the task of confronting
homophobia may distract facilitators from the central issue of the men's
violence.
--------------------------------
Batterer Intervention- Program Approaches and Criminal Justice
Strategies
Chapter1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
|
http://www.eurowrc.org/
Violent Men
