Batterer Intervention- Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies 
Chapter 1 
Chapter 2  
Chapter 3

Chapter 6: Sources of Help and Information 
-------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 5: Criminal Justice Response 
Batterer intervention programs are only one link in a chain of criminal justice responses to battering. To be effective, not only batterer intervention programming but all links in the chain must be strong. Andrew Klein, chief probation officer for the Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court argues:

[T]reatment programs alone are rarely enough -- many provide only a small part of what is needed to stop serious batterers. To be effective, these programs must operate within the broader context of a comprehensive intervention effort. Treatment really begins with the issuance of a restraining order or arrest for domestic violence and continues with successful prosecution and significant, enforced sanctions. Tough monitoring is also necessary. . . .[1]

Coordinated criminal justice efforts are particularly important in combatting domestic violence because victims of domestic abuse can be endangered by any breakdown in communication, failure of training, or lack of follow-through by criminal justice agencies, batterer interventions, or victim advocates and liaisons. The opposite is also true: an efficient, consistent criminal justice response to battering can reinforce the message of batterer programs and motivate batterers to comply with treatment. Sid Hoover, supervisor of Seattle's Municipal Probation Domestic Violence Unit, speculates that most batterers sentenced to probation comply with court orders to attend batterer programs:

. . . as a result of what the criminal justice system has already shown them before they came in our door -- in other words: "I got arrested, I got court orders out against me, I can lose my family and my house, I'm responsible, and I have to do something to change." They're not going to wait until they walk in [probation's] door to realize that, they're going to realize it the first night they're in jail.

Compliance with probation conditions is a threshold issue affecting program outcomes: to be effective, batterer programs must enroll clients and maintain client cooperation. Klein emphasizes the importance of the criminal justice context of batterer intervention when he writes, "When it comes to changing batterers, we are usually talking about forced treatment."[2]

This chapter examines steps the criminal justice system can take to enhance the efficacy of batterer intervention. The discussion, based on interviews with criminal justice and program personnel at five sites (see chapter 3, "Pioneers in Batterer Intervention"), is divided into three sections:

o Section one provides an overview of the principal features of a coordinated systemwide response to battering (from arrest to prosecution, sentencing, program referral, and monitoring by probation or parole) (see the box "Key Components of an Integrated Criminal Justice Response to Battering") and then discusses key systemwide practices that may contribute to -- or impede -- batterer intervention efficacy.

o Section two provides an in-depth discussion of issues of particular interest to probation officers who coordinate and oversee batterer participation in programs and a discussion of probation services at the five sites.

o Section three discusses ways in which criminal justice agencies can cooperate and collaborate with batterer interventions.

Criminal Justice System Issues Affecting Batterer Intervention

A number of systemwide issues have an indirect but serious impact on the efficacy of batterer intervention.

Enrollment in a Batterer Intervention Should Occur Quickly

Depending on State-level speedy trial laws and the backlogs faced by local courts, a batterer who chooses to take his case to trial may extend the period between arrest and sentencing to three months or longer. Probation officers and prosecutors suggest that even under ideal circumstances the time between sentencing and program enrollment would on average be six weeks. In reality, however, several months may be consumed because of program overcrowding, fixed program intake dates, client resistance and claims of indigence, and additional hearings to reorder uncooperative offenders to programs or to extend the period allowed for compliance. Gondolf found that some men entered programs two years after arrest. According to a Seattle probation officer, 89 percent of probationers miss the first six-week deadline to enroll in a batterer program; at that point they are scheduled for a hearing -- usually three weeks away -- when they are likely to be given another month to comply. If they continue to fail to comply, probation officers may shorten the time between violation and court date, but many batterers are still able to postpone program participation for many months.

While many offenders are slow to enroll in court- ordered programs, many others never show up at all. In 1994-1995, 350 of the 753 men referred to House of Ruth in Baltimore failed to appear for intake. Possible explanations include inability to pay, arrests for other crimes, flight from the jurisdiction, or neglect in the vast caseloads of general probation (intensive probation is available only for the most serious domestic violence offenders). In Des Moines, probation officers report that approximately one-third of all batterers ordered to probation and batterer intervention never report for supervision or program intake. Probation officers notify the court of the violation and a bench warrant is issued; however, arrests are rare because of staffing shortages. In 1996, local police received a small grant to pay officers overtime to enforce warrants against batterers. The goal of the initiative is to rearrest half of the 800 batterers who failed to comply with their court orders in the last year (including batterers who failed the program as well as those who never reported to probation).

Whatever the causes, by allowing slow compliance and noncompliance with court-ordered batterer intervention, the criminal justice system not only creates an appearance of unconcern for the crime - - which contradicts program messages that battering is both illegal and socially unacceptable -- but may also endanger the victim. Furthermore, delays in program participation may also limit the deterrent benefit of participating in batterer programs. Commenting on the preliminary results of his evaluation of four batterer interventions, Edward Gondolf speculated that speed of enrollment in treatment might, upon further evaluation, predict recidivism better than the type of criminal justice referral (pretrial diversion versus conviction), program length, or program content.[4]

Communities with a centralized domestic violence docket and a limited number of intervention providers may be able to schedule program intake onsite at the time of sentencing. The Domestic Abuse Counseling Center in Pittsburgh (DACC) reduced the time lost between sentencing and program enrollment by instituting program registration at the courthouse (see exhibit 5-1). Program Director Wil Avery at House of Ruth estimated it would require approximately $30,000 per year to fund court-based intake staff because facilitators and other program staff currently perform intake on a part-time basis on weekends; however, the cost of instituting such a change would be nominal for programs with full-time intake personnel, which could establish a satellite office at the courthouse.

Reducing the time between sentencing and contact with probation also helps to expedite program referral. In Baltimore, offenders are simultaneously ordered to report to central intake at probation and parole and to enroll in a batterer program. However, if the batterer disobeys both orders, three months elapse before central intake begins to write letters to the batterer's last address; during this period, neither probation nor House of Ruth is aware that the batterer has been referred to them by the courts. By contrast, other jurisdictions impose stricter and shorter limits on the time a batterer is permitted to wait before reporting to the domestic violence probation unit. For example, probationers participating in a diversion program in Denver (which requires batterers to enter a guilty plea in order to participate) are given a week to report to the program's treatment provider. If they fail to report after a month, their probation is revoked and their conviction entered.

Probation officers and program directors note that simple procedures, such as faxing program staff the lists of probationers referred to a specific program, can help overburdened probation officers by making it possible for programs to track who is supposed to have registered and notify probation when particular offenders have not enrolled. However, in many jurisdictions, program referral practices that give probationers a wide choice of programs to attend make this kind of control difficult. The standard approach in many communities, allowing the batterer to choose his own intervention from a list of approved providers, may work against prompt enrollment and make the job of probation officers more difficult. A more efficient approach might be to allow probation officers to assign batterers to a specific program (taking into account the probationer's neighborhood, special needs, and financial capabilities). According to probation officer Dexter Shipman in Colorado's 18th Judicial District, "We found through experience that if you give [batterers] two or three programs to choose from -- some would even ask for the entire list -- they spend two or three months shopping around to find which program is a dollar cheaper or seems to fit their schedule perfectly. So we stopped doing that and now we make specific referrals."

Centralization Improves Service Delivery

A centralized docket for domestic violence cases, used by the Quincy District Court in Massachusetts, presents a number of advantages for all criminal justice agencies that handle domestic violence cases, especially as domestic violence cases are increasingly handled by dedicated domestic violence units or by individuals with reduced and specialized caseloads.

o Prosecutors who specialize in domestic violence cases need not waste time traveling from court to court to try cases. In Baltimore, where the prosecution of domestic violence cases is decentralized, municipal domestic violence prosecutor Ronnie Young is able to serve only five of nine police districts. The rest are served by line prosecutors. Following the planned creation of a centralized docket, Young, along with additional staff, expects to serve all nine police districts and to prosecute all batteries, stalkings, and violations of temporary restraining orders at one location.

o Probation units located near or in the courthouse with the domestic violence docket can receive immediate referrals from the court. One program reported that as soon as batterers are sentenced, they are told, "Now walk down that hall and report to probation before you leave."

o Judges using specialized dockets not only become expert on domestic violence issues but are also more likely to note the repeat offender or the offender who continues to avoid complying with the terms of his sentence.

o Court-based victim advocates (whether working with prosecutors or probation officers) need a centralized, secure facility in or near the court to provide support and services for victims who plan to testify. Beth Ledoux, a victim advocate who worked in both the prosecutor office and probation department of the Quincy District Court, emphasizes the need for a secure passage for victims to the courtroom. When her office was moved away from the courthouse and housed with probation several blocks away, Ledoux left her job because she felt it would be too dangerous for victims to go for counseling to the same office as batterers and to travel unprotected between the office and the court for revocation hearings.

Sheri Yeates, domestic violence prosecutor in King County (Seattle), raises another issue related to centralization of services: neighboring jurisdictions may find it more efficient to contract with one authority to provide services. According to Yeates:

Parts of the Municipality of Bellevue are incorporated, and then there are regions -- literally like fingers in and out -- that are still unincorporated. So you might live on one side of the street and the City would respond, and on the other side of the street King County would respond. . . . [Bellevue] is contracting with [the County] to provide services because it is more beneficial to clients who are moving back and forth. Victims [from both the County and the City] will have the same advocate.

Prosecutors and Judges Need Accurate and Complete Defendant Information

Prosecutors, judges, and probation officers need a system for accessing relevant defendant information, including previous arrests (for both domestic-violence-related and nondomestic violence offenses, especially those involving assault), substance abuse history, civil cases and restraining order information, involvement with child protective services, and any previous experience with batterer intervention, to make proper decisions concerning plea bargains, sentencing, and bail.

Linda Ferry, supervisor of the Domestic Violence Unit and Diversion Program in Denver's City Attorney's Office, describes its method of data collection:

In this unit, victim advocates intervene immediately, before the case goes to first arraignment, to try to determine if there's a pattern of abuse that's gone on -- reported or not. We try to garner whatever information we can from the victim regarding the situation and the defendant. . . . We have the cooperation of probation in that effort -- they have a form with the defendant's State criminal history on it. We also look up everything that's in the City files, and we get a pretty good profile.

Prompt data collection is important in Denver, because approximately one-third of batterers either plead guilty at first arraignment and are sentenced to immediate probation or plead "not guilty" and are given the opportunity to participate in a diversion program for first-time offenders with no criminal record. The diversion program offers a deferred judgment for one year, and defendants are expected to plead guilty at the next arraignment if they are accepted for it. The defendant can also have the case set for trial. However, because domestic violence defendants are not eligible for bail until they come before a judge, Ferry knows that the batterer will not be released until arraignment and that arraignment will not be scheduled until the next day -- sufficient time to contact the victim and collect defendant data. Further screening of candidates for program diversion is done by an in-house probation officer for the program, which operates out of the prosecutor's office. At the initial interview with the probation officer, diversion candidates sometimes reveal a criminal record or simply display an uncooperative attitude that may disqualify them from diversion. In this program, batterers who plead guilty but do not qualify for either immediate probation or the diversion program -- those who have a significant history of domestic violence or who are already on probation -- are referred to probation for a presentence interview for further information collection and are likely to receive jail time in addition to extended probation.

Loss of information -- or failure to obtain complete information about batterers -- can have serious consequences for both victims and batterer programs. Batterers whose behavior has resulted in police calls to the home, or who have been arrested but never convicted, may be treated as "first-time offenders," offered diversion, or released without bond or a restraining order if proper research has not been conducted.

Intervention Is Needed for All Batterers

Jurisdictions need to develop program options for the full range of batterers, not only low-risk male heterosexual batterers who are amenable to standard treatment. Many program providers and probation officers voiced concern that only a fraction of convicted batterers ever entered interventions. For example, among the five sites examined in this study, only Denver has batterer interventions geared explicitly to high-risk batterers. As a result, high-risk batterers -- along with those who are incarcerated, psychologically disturbed, female, gay, non- English speaking, indigent, or merely uncooperative -- often fall through the cracks. Probation should work with local intervention providers to develop sentencing options for different categories of batterers that include intervention.

In Baltimore, probation officers are exploring the possibility of providing in-house batterer groups for high-risk batterers and uncooperative batterers who have been terminated by local programs. According to Suzanne Sigona, director of Probation for Denver County, "Obviously, everyone needs treatment. Even if they've served time in jail, if they haven'treceived treatment we haven't really gotten anywhere. We've made the public happy because [punishment] seems better to them [than treatment], but we haven't addressed the [underlying] issue."

As sentencing and program options for a fuller range of batterers are developed, assessment tools to assist probation and the courts in assigning batterers to appropriate interventions must also be developed. Both the criminal justice-based assessment of offender risk and amenability to intervention developed by Goldkamp from his study of the Dade County Domestic Violence Court and the more detailed assessment tool used by probation in Denver's 18th Judicial District to assign batterers to risk categories suggest ways in which meaningful assessments can be made quickly with basic defendant information (see chapter 4, "Current Trends in Batterer Intervention," for a full discussion of these assessment tools).

State Service Provider Standards Help Control Abuses but May Block Program Diversity

In 1996, 28 States and the District of Columbia had developed standards or guidelines governing programs or individuals providing batterer intervention. Another 13 States were in the process of developing standards or guidelines (see exhibit 5-2, "Information Matrix on Interventions for Batterers," and appendix A, "State Standards Matrix"). While their requirements and enforceability vary widely, most of these guidelines are designed to institutionalize current norms among mainstream batterer interventions (see chapter 3, "Pioneers in Batterer Intervention").

Most practitioners in the field welcome these controls as a deterrent to inexperienced or unethical counselors who might provide treatment without proper preparation -- substance abuse counselors without domestic violence expertise, for example, who have clients that are also court- ordered batterers.

Standards and guidelines may also regulate program providers who use unconventional techniques (such as short-term programs or anger management counseling) or approaches that many consider to be dangerous to victims, such as couples counseling (see chapter 2, "The Causes of Domestic Violence").

While controls are appropriate in a field where program malfeasance may jeopardize victim safety, too little is known about the efficacy of current interventions to create standards that stifle innovation. For example, in Iowa, where State standards mandate use of the Duluth curriculum, a special exception was needed to permit Des Moines criminal justice and program staff to explore the use of a different curriculum with high-risk batterers.

Local networks of program providers and criminal justice agencies that are still in the process of developing State standards need to make a conscious effort not to stifle thoughtful attempts at innovation (as opposed to reckless disregard for accepted practices). For example, The Compassion Workshop operates in Maryland, where guidelines are still being developed, but would not be eligible for certification in many States because of the brevity of the treatment model, mixed-gender treatment groups, and nontraditional program curriculum. The program founder, Steven Stosny, is working with the committee responsible for developing standards to create a format under which his program could operate, but he is encountering resistance among mainstream program providers to his proposal that the standards should evolve based on quasi-experimental, independent program evaluations. For example, if program evaluations showed that shorter programs - - such as The Compassion Workshop -- prevent recidivism as effectively as longer ones, then (according to his proposal) requirements stipulating longer treatment periods would be removed from the standards. In North Carolina, another State where standards are still under development, the Empowerment Project was not given referrals by the local court, and was thus effectively shut down, because of controversy surrounding its use of exclusively African American batterer groups and its African culture- based curriculum. The Empowerment Project has survived by shifting its efforts to training program staff in other States, but its experience illustrates that even informal constraints on practice by peers and the criminal justice system may effectively foreclose the development of new approaches to batterer intervention.

Ideally, standards should be crafted to foster innovation while providing safeguards for victims. For example, State and local boards could provide oversight for and evaluation of newly proposed interventions and integrate research findings into their required or recommended practice models. Furthermore, better evaluation of existing programming would allow standards to focus on performance-based outcomes, rather than stipulating content.

The implementation of State standards may be fraught with controversy. In Colorado, licensed professionals who do not want further requirements imposed on their practices actively oppose the training required by the standards. Some probation officers in the State express concern that standards result in a "cookie cutter" approach to batterer intervention when recent research points to the need for a diversity of approaches, increased assessment, and specialized intervention strategies. They note, however, that having no standards would be more dangerous than having overly restrictive ones. Colorado's standards are implemented by local boards in the 22 judicial districts. According to the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, two boards have been completely inactive, three districts have only one provider each -- inadequate for their caseloads -- and three other districts have no certified batterer intervention providers. Local boards have been sued in several districts and threatened with lawsuits in eight others because the enabling statute empowers them to certify programs but is unclear about their decertification authority. Fear of liability and disagreements among treatment providers concerning needed credentials has limited the boards' effectiveness. In short, the adoption of standards can be a complex undertaking that may accelerate the debate surrounding batterer intervention rather than end it.

The Key Role of Probation: Batterer Supervision

Probation officers are the most critical link between the criminal justice system and batterer interventions. At the five sites visited for this study, some, if not all, batterers on probation were selected for intensive supervision by specialized probation units or designated officers because officers in general probation supervision are often too overburdened to provide any meaningful supervision of batterers. However, while officers in specialized units can do a better job, many still feel concerned that their caseload prevents them from offering all the services and supervision they believe are necessary. According to Sid Hoover, supervisor of Seattle's Municipal Domestic Violence Probation Unit, "We're doing it as skimpy as you can imagine. You've got about 180-190 clients, so you've got 150 on a face-to-face supervision, and you've got 21 working days to see them all and deal with all their noncompliance and all their crazy stuff -- that's not very many minutes per guy. If we tried to get involved with victim service the way we feel it should be done it would dilute [our efforts] so much that we would be opened up to liability."

With the permission of the court, Hoover had enlisted a volunteer to provide notifications and counseling to the 1,100 victims of his unit's probationers, but after extensive training, the volunteer quit without explanation. Hoover, speculating that "it would be asking too much emotionally" for a volunteer to provide this service, has decided to wait for funding for a paid victim advocate.

In Baltimore, prosecutors decide which batterers are referred to the Family Assault Supervision Team (FAST) and which are sent to general probation. In the FAST Unit, each probation officer supervises an average of 43 cases, for a total of 316 -- less than a third of all battering cases sent to probation. These reduced caseloads allow officers to work closely with victims, many of whom are illiterate and need special advocacy to help them assert their rights with criminal justice agencies. The FAST unit is able to process a warrant within 24 hours for probationers who are in violation of their sentences and to maintain weekly contact with House of Ruth to monitor batterers' progress in the program. One of the major problems probation officers face in Baltimore is how to intervene with sociopathic, extremely violent, female, or indigent probationers who are refused by the two programs in the city. One officer observed that 50 percent of her caseload was "too violent or scary" for local interventions. Faced with a lack of local programming, the FAST unit is researching how it might provide in-house batterer intervention for probationers who are terminated from House of Ruth or are not appropriate for community-based programs. FAST Field Supervisor Peggy Araya saw the planned in-house groups as "positive reinforcement that domestic violence is a crime" and a way to ensure that all batterers received some form of intervention.

In Colorado's 18th Judicial District outside of Denver, more than 90 percent of battering cases are misdemeanors and, as a result, had never received any supervision until the chief of probation decided some form of supervision was necessary for victim safety. The chief utilized the Deputy Probation Officer Program -- a corps of 45 volunteers -- to help supervise these low-risk batterers. In addition to the volunteers, who maintain small caseloads, a staff officer supervises all high-risk probationers (approximately 150 cases): a staff coordinator monitors the volunteers and screens batterers; a victim advocate attempts to contact all victims; and a consultant psychologist performs batterer risk assessment (see chapter 4, "Current Trends in Batterer Intervention," for a detailed description of the assessment tool used). The 18th Judicial District has had very positive experiences with using volunteers.

The Quincy District Court Probation Department is part of an integrated, comprehensive approach to domestic violence that emphasizes coordination among criminal justice agencies, batterer programs, substance abuse treatment programs, social services, victim advocates, and the community.[6] Key probation department policies include:

o preparation of thorough presentencing reports urging judges to impose strict probation conditions;

o establishment of the court -- and the probation officer as a representative of the court -- as the authority regulating the batterer's relationship with the victim;

o maximum intensity supervision that may include weekly batterer program meetings, four weekly alcohol or substance abuse self-help meetings, one addiction counseling session, one face-to-face meeting with their probation officer, and one weekly alcohol or drug test, with the goal of almost daily contact with the probationer;

o strict monitoring of batterer program and substance abuse treatment compliance, with "compliance" requiring active participation; and

o utilization of the rules of evidence governing probation proceedings that permit hearsay testimony (for example, allowing the responding police officer to testify in lieu of the victim concerning reports of new abusive incidents), have a lower standard of proof, and place less emphasis on the accused's right to confront witnesses than the rules pertaining to criminal trials.[7]

The principal characteristics that distinguish the Quincy Probation Department from others visited for this report were its emphasis on maximum intensity probation and its focus on substance abuse as a factor that exacerbates batterer recidivism. Andrew Klein emphasized that weekly urine or alcohol tests were so important that the department would pay for them if the batterer failed to do so. Until recently, the Quincy Probation Department had a grant-funded victim advocate who assisted victims to testify at probation hearings, provided referrals, and assisted batterer programs and probation officers with victim information. However, as mentioned previously, when the probation department offices were moved to a location where victims visiting the probation-based advocate might encounter their batterers, the advocate quit her work on the grounds that she might endanger the victims.

Collaboration Among Community Partners

Richard Tolman has argued that the greatest contribution batterer programs make may not be their work with individual offenders but rather their ability to bring together major actors in the criminal justice and community service sectors to work cooperatively to reduce domestic violence. In his view, cooperative efforts among criminal justice agencies, batterer interventions, victim advocates, battered women's agencies, and the community are likely to produce more significant reductions in battering than any single unit or program. Tolman also believes that much of what is important in changing social attitudes toward domestic violence lies in the coordinated and consistent messages criminal justice agencies send through their interactions with victims and batterers and in criminal justice agencies' cooperative work with community groups, schools, and batterer interventions. In this view, changing the behavior of individual batterers is only part of the larger policy objective of deterring everyone from battering their partners.

Jonathan Cohen, assistant director of the Batterers Intervention Project in New City, New York, takes this line of reasoning further. Cohen advises communities without batterer intervention programs to focus first on creating a coordinated community response to battering by involving criminal justice agencies, battered women's agencies, mental health and medical institutions, schools, businesses, religious organizations, child protective services, the media, and social service agencies. According to Cohen:

Once you realize that coordinated community response is the level at which men's violence can be changed or stopped, it's easier to let go of one's investment in individual men changing [the aim of most batterer programs].

From a criminal justice perspective, individual change in batterers is a legitimate and important goal; however, Cohen's point -- that battering may be better deterred by coordinated social and criminal justice policies than by work with individual batterers -- is an important one and highlights the need to maintain a broad view of domestic violence policy while fine-tuning specific departmental policies affecting batterer programs.

This section describes formal and informal collaborations between criminal justice agencies program staff and community partners that include:

o informal monthly meetings between batterer intervention providers and probation staff;

o local task forces that coordinate and monitor citywide or regional domestic violence policies, including batterer intervention operation; and

o Statewide committees to formulate State-level standards for batterer programs and other domestic violence policies.

Informal Cooperation Between Probation and Program Staff

A common form of collaboration is the informal monthly meeting between probation officers and program providers intended to provide a forum for the discussion of issues of mutual concern and to encourage communication and cooperation between criminal justice personnel and program providers. Seattle's Domestic Violence Intervention Committee (DVIC) is chaired by the chief probation officer and initially included both batterer program providers and victim advocates. These meetings between probation and program providers were especially important because they facilitated communication with a large number of treatment providers at once. In addition to meeting with their own service providers, the probation office was planning to meet with other domestic violence committees in neighboring jurisdictions at least quarterly to exchange information. Much of DVIC's work focuses on building communication among the various service providers who come into contact with batterers and their victims. For example, DVIC sponsored a conference to encourage information exchange between battered women's advocates and batterer program providers. A battered women's advocate praised the conference for providing a new perspective for advocates, saying, "It was a different language to them -- one they'd never heard before. [Previously] it was hard [for us] to understand what batterer treatment providers deal with."

Discussion at one DVIC meeting focused on plans to offer a training session on batterer intervention for substance dependency providers and issues related to batterers and substance abuse. The implementation of State standards for batterer programs was also discussed, as well as plans to lobby for changes or refinements in the standards. Other topics included plans for a future meeting to focus on intervention issues relating to African Americans and plans to begin offering batterer programs for incarcerated batterers.

Local Domestic Violence Coordinating Committees

A number of communities have city- or county-level committees charged with coordinating domestic violence policy between criminal justice agencies and the social service sector. Some of these committees are policymaking bodies, while others provide a forum for exchanging information on new domestic violence procedures or programs. In some States, State standards empower local committees to certify batterer program providers.

Since 1985, the Mayor's Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee (DVCC) in Baltimore has been monitoring and coordinating the criminal justice and community response to domestic violence. The DVCC, chaired by Judge Mary Ellen Rinehardt, administrative judge for the District Court for Baltimore City, includes representatives from the local batterer intervention, probation and parole officers, law enforcement personnel, pretrial release services staff, the chief prosecutor of the State's Attorney's domestic violence unit, and a policy director from the Mayor's office. The group's central accomplishment has been to draft and continuously update the "Baltimore City Domestic Violence Policies and Procedures," guidelines that are intended to ensure that 1) domestic violence is treated as a crime, 2) the offender is held responsible, and 3) the victim is protected. Ongoing tasks of the committee include:

o adopting a uniform definition of domestic violence;

o developing a system for tracking and monitoring cases;

o developing and coordinating specialized units;

o developing and coordinating training programs;

o strengthening agency policies and procedures; and

o coordinating effort between the criminal justice system and batterer program providers.[8]

State-Level Domestic Violence Committees and Task Forces

State-level committees and task forces on domestic violence address policy issues such as how to raise funding for batterer intervention or special criminal justice units from taxes and fines, the centralization of funding for domestic violence services, and legal reforms needed to provide services to victims or hold batterers accountable. State committees are also often charged with developing drafts of standards or guidelines for the certification of batterer programs.

In Maryland, the State Standards Committee, with representatives from local criminal justice agencies, children and family services, batterer programs, and victim services agencies, discussed policy issues of general interest and together considered possible solutions to common problems. Among the topics discussed were the needs of victims who are dually diagnosed (those with substance abuse and mental health issues); enforcement of child support payments due to victims within 30 days (so that the family is not evicted); problems with the funding of children's services; dangers posed by visitation rights granted to divorced batterers; lack of funding sources for batterer programs; and the growth of national organizations that provide private defense council to accused batterers and child abusers. A subcommittee working on a draft proposal for State standards for batterer intervention presented key issues to be discussed at a full session devoted to the topic.

Conclusion

The criminal justice response to domestic violence is critical to batterer programs because interventions rely on the criminal justice support to add force to their work. The examples of probation supervision at five sites illustrate that there are many ways to approach batterer supervision. Nevertheless, probation officers in all the jurisdictions emphasized the need for:

o maintaining intensive supervision of batterers;

o developing programming options for all batterers; and

o cultivating good communication with program providers.

All the examples of cooperation discussed above contribute positively to the work of batterer interventions, but the informal meetings between batterer program providers and probation officers offer the greatest single opportunity for solving local issues affecting batterer intervention. These groups should serve as a resource for city- and State-level groups that are looking for guidance in developing local protocols or State- level standards.

Endnotes

1. Klein, A., Editorial, National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention, 2 (5) (May 1996):1.

2. Ibid.

3. For a detailed description of an integrated criminal justice response to domestic violence, see Gelb, A., The Quincy Court Model Domestic Abuse Program Manual, Swampscott, MA: Production Specilaties, n.d. (See chapter 6, "Sources of Help and Information," for availability.)

4. Interview with Edward Gondolf, October 22, 1996.

5. Klein, A., Editorial, National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention, 2 (4) (April 1996): 2.

6. See Gelb, The Quincy Court Model Domestic Abuse Program Manual.

7. Ibid.

8. "Baltimore City Domestic Violence Policies and Procedures," Manual, revised 1995: 3.

--------------------------------

Key Points

o Batterer intervention programs alone cannot be expected to deter domestic violence; strong, coordinated criminal justice support is also needed.

o The combined impact of arrest, incarceration, adjudication, and probation supervision may send a stronger message to the batterer about the seriousness of his behavior than what is taught in a batterer program.

o Criminal justice personnel can take actions at all points in the criminal justice system to reinforce the message that battering is a crime and to support the efforts of batterer programs:

1) -- Expedite Domestic Violence Cases. Adopt policies to expedite batterers' trial dates, sentencing, probation contact, and batterer program intake.

2) -- Use Specialized Units and Centralized Dockets. Specialized domestic violence prosecution and probation units, and centralized court dockets for battering cases and restraining orders improve services to victims and better coordinate batterer prosecution, sentencing, and supervision.

3) -- Gather Broad-Based Offender Information Quickly. Create a system to gather complete defendant information for prosecutors and judges, including previous arrests and convictions (for both domestic violence and other crimes), substance abuse, child welfare contacts, and victim information.

4) -- Take Advantage of Culturally Competent or Specialized Interventions. Maximize effective use of batterer programming by seeking appropriate interventions for batterers who are indigent, high-risk, female, mentally ill, or incarcerated.

5) -- Coordinate Batterer Intervention with Substance Abuse Treatment. In cases where the batterer has an alcohol or drug abuse problem, courts should mandate treatment as well as batterer intervention. Probation officers should intensively monitor batterers' compliance with substance abuse treatment through weekly urine testing.

6) -- Be Alert to the Risks to Children in Domestically Abusive Households. Judges and probation officers should be alert to the danger posed by domestic violence to children (even to children who are not themselves physically abused) and coordinate with child protective services and programs that specialize in domestically abusive families to ensure that batterers' children are safe and are receiving appropriate services.

7) -- Create a Continuum of Supports and Protection for Victims. Victim advocates should be provided to monitor victim safety and to assist victims with the criminal justice system from the time of the assault through trial and/or probation. Victim advocates attached to probation units are particularly important in monitoring the safety of women whose batterers are sentenced to a batterer program.

8) -- Encourage Interagency Cooperation. Organize formal coordinating committees of probation officers, prosecutors, battered women's advocates, child protection workers and batterer intervention providers to discuss batterer referral and monitoring policies regularly.

o State standards are needed to deter inexperienced or unethical counselors but may inadvertently stifle innovation.

o Probation supervision is central to criminal justice policy concerning battering and cooperation with batterer interventions.

--------------------------------

Key Components of an Integrated Criminal Justice Response to Battering

Batterer intervention programs are unlikely to change offender behavior without the support and cooperation of the criminal justice system. Supportive system responses include coordination among agencies, the use of victim advocates throughout the system, the designation of special units or individuals responsible for handling battering cases, and the provision of appropriate training for personnel concerning domestic violence issues and procedures.[3]

Law enforcement officers need training to increase their sensitivity to the needs of victims and to investigate allegations of domestic violence thoroughly, including filing reports of calls where no arrests were made. Law enforcement officers need to be able to:

o identify the primary aggressor, including understanding the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and issues concerning same-sex couples (see box, "Determining the Primary Physical Aggressor");

o execute a proarrest or mandatory arrest policy;

o gather evidence at the scene, including photographs and statements that may be important to the prosecution if the witness does not wish to press charges; and

o arrange for a temporary restraining or no- contact order.

In addition, law enforcement officers need to enforce bench warrants issued for batterers who have not reported to probation or whose probation has been revoked for program noncompliance.

Pretrial screening for offenders charged with domestic-violence-related offenses needs to ensure that batterers are not released on their own recognizance or on bail before arraignment. Pretrial services personnel need to gather as much background data as possible for the prosecutor and judge, including history of prior arrests, convictions, domestic violence arrests and convictions, any previous batterer intervention, and substance abuse.

Selected prosecutors should specialize in domestic violence cases. They need adequate support from police, probation officers, and victim advocates to be able to follow through on domestic abuse cases and to pursue the volume of cases generated by a proarrest policy or a mandatory arrest statute.

Prosecutors need to:

o pursue cases without victim testimony, if necessary, so that victims do not need to confront their batterers to use the criminal justice system;

o use a vertical prosecution model to increase victim cooperation and prosecutor familiarity with each case;

o keep offender files containing information concerning previous arrests and convictions, substance abuse history, child protective services contact, reports from probation, and recorded statements made by the defendant to the court (e.g., "I couldn't register for batterer treatment because my grandmother died");

o make use of victim advocates (see below) both to assist in case preparation and to reduce the victim's anxiety during prosecution;

o pursue probation revocations in domestic violence cases with the same urgency as the original case, since a revocation hearing indicates renewed danger to the victim; and

o request batterer intervention program participation as a condition of probation or other sentence.

System-based victim advocates should be available to victims at all stages of the criminal justice process. Advocates attached to specialized police, prosecutor, and probation units need to:

o establish contact with the victim as quickly as possible (some now accompany police to the scene of the complaint);

o explain the criminal justice system to the victim;

o gather evidence for police and prosecutors;

o assist the victim with safety planning and provide service referrals;

o notify victims of key offender events (such as termination from program) and other imminent threats to their safety;

o assist probation officers by monitoring batterer compliance with sentencing conditions through victim reports; and

o assist victims to testify in court at trial and probation revocation hearings.

Advocates from different departments and agencies need to coordinate their services, so that victims are not "dumped" following prosecution and so that multiple service referrals are not made.

Judges, preferably assigned to centralized special domestic violence dockets, need to be willing to issue meaningful and appropriate sentences -- including jail time, mandatory participation in batterer intervention programs, participation in substance abuse treatment, and fines or community service, depending on the circumstances of the case. Courts need to process domestic violence cases quickly and require prompt enrollment in a batterer program and immediate contact with probation, if these are terms of a batterer's sentence. Judges should also respond forcefully, with graduated sanctions, to reports from probation and program staff that a batterer is not abiding by the terms of his sentence, including failure to comply with the rules of the batterer program. Judges also need to be familiar with State standards for batterer programs (where they exist) to guide them in the sentencing of batterers.

Finally, judges need to be alert to the co- occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse, and the dangers posed to children who witness domestic violence. Judges should coordinate batterer intervention with child protective services programming where appropriate and familiarize themselves with new programming targeting batterers who also abuse children in their care.

Probation officers, organized in specialized domestic violence units with reduced caseloads, need to provide intensive probation supervision. They also need to understand the issues surrounding domestic violence, batterer interventions, and emerging batterer typologies in order to supervise and monitor batterers effectively, including ensuring that they comply with their sentences. Probation officers also need to:

o prepare thorough presentencing reports on batterers (see below);

o obtain information on batterers sentenced to probation in a timely manner and issue warrants for batterers who do not report to probation;

o develop assessment tools or referral policies to assist in assigning batterers to appropriate batterer programs;

 o provide intensive supervision for all batterers;

o develop resources for supervising batterers who are not accepted by or are not appropriate for mainstream batterer interventions; and

o assess batterer drug and alcohol abuse and closely monitor batterer sobriety with random drug and alcohol screening, when appropriate.

Finally, probation officers can take the lead in establishing at least monthly meetings between batterer intervention service providers and probation officers to discuss difficult cases and other issues of mutual concern (see p. 95, "Local Domestic Violence Coordinating Committees").

To assist criminal justice personnel, batterer programs need to:

o provide regular reports to probation and the courts, tracking who has enrolled, offender cooperation with program requirements, sobriety, and sentence compliance;

o have contact with advocates for the victims of their clients and provide timely notification to the victim and probation -- or any other appropriate agency -- if a new threat to victim safety arises;

o meet regularly with representatives of the domestic violence probation and prosecution units to discuss topics of mutual concern (see p. 94, "Collaboration among Community Partners"); and

o meet regularly with representatives of independent battered women's programs to discuss topics of mutual concern.

--------------------------------

Pittsburgh's Domestic Abuse Counseling Center (DACC): Short-term Programming With Strong Criminal Justice and Community Links

DACC is a nonprofit program offering batterer intervention at 15 sites in Western Pennsylvania. DACC uses an innovative combination of batterer counseling, broad-based community education, and coordinated community response featuring collaborative efforts with social service agencies, the criminal justice system, battered women's agencies, and health organizations (including substance abuse and mental health providers). DACC's approach is notable for several features:

o in-court intake personnel who facilitate batterer enrollment within two weeks of arrest and schedule program orientation within three weeks of arrest (see exhibit 5-1, "Domestic Abuse Counseling Center (DACC) Timeline/Flowchart");

o a diversion program monitored directly by the court at regular intervals (three mandatory court reviews in four months; see exhibit 5-1);

o a short-term cognitive behavioral intervention (16 weekly 90-minute sessions);

o a pilot program offering an intensive intervention (three meetings per week) for high- risk or repeat offenders who are not appropriate for entry into the general program. Offenders remain in the intensive program until they display appropriate attitudes and behaviors for entry into the regular program;

o dual tracking of batterers with substance abuse or mental health issues. DACC provides case management and monitoring for batterers participating in substance abuse or mental health counseling;

o a specialized intervention group for law enforcement officers; and

o a court liaison who provides information, consultation, and case review for the Domestic Violence Court to expedite proceedings and ensure appropriate court action.

DACC was chosen for a multisite evaluation sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control, which is still under way. A 1993-1994 evaluation found that program participants were nonviolent for at least six months following the program, and half the victims reported feeling "very safe" at the six-month follow-up.

--------------------------------

 Determining the Primary Physical Aggressor: A Knotty Issue for Law Enforcement

Counselors and victim advocates express concern that some batterers referred to programs -- mostly women and homosexuals -- have been improperly identified as the primary aggressor. Because studies have found that the majority of women arrested for battering are so-called "self- defending victims" (see chapter 4, "Current Trends in Batterer Intervention"), the proper identification of the primary physical aggressor is extremely important in order to avoid both revictimizing these women and wasting criminal justice resources. Similarly, advocates for battered gays and lesbians caution police not to assume that the physically larger partner is always the primary aggressor; as with other couples, care must be taken to question the couple and any witnesses closely before making an arrest. It is equally important for police officers to avoid dual arrests, which may not only involve arresting innocent parties but also make it impossible to prosecute anybody. Victim advocates note that mistaken identification of the primary aggressor may occur at the scene because bruises caused by battering may take hours to appear, whereas some signs of defensive violence, such as scratching or biting, are immediately apparent. Advocates also emphasize the importance of determining if there has been a history of abusive incidents -- or a recent escalation of abuse -- which may have led the victim to react fearfully and more violently to a perceived or real threat. In some instances, police may find a chaotic scene where it is not readily apparent which party is the perpetrator and which is the victim. For example, victims may feel safe to express anger against the batterer in the presence of police, thereby giving the impression they are the perpetrators, or may even verbally abuse the police. Linda Ferry, supervisor of the Domestic Violence Unit in Denver's City Prosecutor's office, cautions police not to be provoked into arresting both parties by an angry victim's disrespectful conduct: "As much as police may get satisfaction from [arresting both parties], not 'shutting up' is not criminal" -- or indicative of who the batterer is. One technique to avoid dual arrests is to distinguish between the initial aggressor and the person who has been most severely injured as a result of the violence. In addition, Ferry tells officers to get as much information as possible at the time of the arrest because, "as uncooperative as somebody might seem at the scene, they're going to be worse later." Before taking statements officers need to separate the parties, making sure that both are out of eyesight and earshot of each other. In instances where both parties exhibit signs of injury, officers should consider the possibility of self- defense and examine the relative level of injury or force involved.

--------------------------------

Diversion Sends the Wrong Message

In the 1970's the United States Civil Rights Commission drew attention to the negative symbolism evoked by diverting battering cases. Today there is little controversy on this point; California recently banned the diversion of domestic violence cases.[5] In another State, in a jurisdiction where diversion is used, a guilty plea is a prerequisite for participation. Because fewer than 5 percent of cases are resolved in that manner, 95 percent of batterers are effectively excluded from program participation. As a result, batterers most likely to qualify for these "cream- of-the-crop" diversion programs are better educated, middle-class professionals who accept treatment, rather than take their case to trial, in the hope of avoiding a criminal record. While diversions such as these may make sense in terms of efficient case disposition, Quincy probation chief Andrew Klein cautions, "Actions speak louder than words -- diversion says battering is trivial." Other experts caution that a wide range of sentencing arrangements are swept together under the rubric of "diversion" and that some of these arrangements provide access to swift program enrollment while maintaining batterer accountability (see box, "Pittsburgh's Domestic Abuse Counseling Center").

--------------------------------

Chapter 6: Sources of Help and Information

A number of resources are available to batterer intervention program staff and criminal justice professionals who work with batterer programs. This chapter includes:

o sources of batterer intervention training and materials;

o a listing of materials and information on battering and batterer intervention written from a criminal justice perspective;

o national organizations concerned with domestic violence that can assist criminal justice personnel and batterer intervention providers with information, training, technical assistance, or referrals;

o a directory of State coalitions on domestic violence;

o a list identifying agencies and individuals that are responsible for formulating, approving, or implementing State batterer intervention standards or guidelines;

o a list of individuals willing to share their expertise in batterer intervention, specialized interventions, and criminal justice links to batterer programs; and

o a selected bibliography, organized by topic, highlighting standard texts, new publications of interest, and key program materials.

Batterer Intervention Training and Materials

The following organizations provide training for batterer intervention personnel.

National Training Project Duluth Domestic Abuse Training Project 206 W. Fourth Street Duluth, MN 55806 (218) 722-2781, ext. 111

Training by the National Training Project is required for programs that wish to use the Duluth curriculum. Contact Tina Olsen, National Training Project Coordinator.

EMERGE: Counseling and Education to Stop Domestic Violence 2380 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 101 Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 547-9879 (617) 547-0904 (fax)

EMERGE offers four services that may be of use to practitioners:

o a four-day intensive course for counseling men who batter, which is offered several times a year and is approved for continuing education credits for social workers and alcohol counselors;

o publications on batterer intervention and working with specialized batterer populations, some of them in Spanish, which may be purchased by mail;

o information concerning an educational curriculum for adolescents available from the Dating Violence Intervention Project, an EMERGE partner; and

o a two-day intensive course for counseling adolescent batterers, offered several times per year and also approved for continuing education credits for social workers and alcohol counselors.

National Training Institute Batterers Intervention Project South Main Street New City, New York 10956 (914) 634-5729 (914) 634-7839 (fax) Contact: Phyllis Frank, Ph.D.

The National Training Institute provides technical assistance and professional training based on an educational approach. It provides training in all aspects of the New York State model but will tailor training to the needs of agencies from different States.

The Empowerment Project 2722 Bancroft Street Charlotte, NC 28206 (704) 372-8878/344-9311 Contacts: Sunya Faloyan and Radhia Jaaber, cofounders

The Empowerment Project has developed a still evolving curriculum to address batterers of African descent. Program development consulting is available.

Criminal Justice Materials and Information

The following resources may assist criminal justice professionals in formulating a coordinated response to battering and in assessing batterers who are mandated to interventions.

Quincy District Court Model Domestic Violence Response Materials Quincy Court/Polaroid Information Service P.O. Box 100 Penfield, NY 14516-9958 (800) 662-8337, ext. 62

The Quincy Court Model Domestic Abuse Program is an award-winning project that has been recognized as a national model by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and replicated throughout Massachusetts. Polaroid is a corporate sponsor for the production of the following informational materials and product catalogs:

o Quincy Domestic Violence Community Response Guide

o Quincy Domestic Violence Probation Response Guide

o Quincy Domestic Violence Police Response Guide

o Domestic Violence Use of Photography Overview

o Law Enforcement Product Catalog

o Law Enforcement Curriculum Guide

o Instant Evidence Domestic Violence Edition

o Kidcare Event Guide

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 (800) 851-3420 E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs_aspensys.com

NCJRS, a service sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, provides access to free government publications (including a number of those listed in the Selected Bibliography) and assistance with criminal justice research.

Criminal Justice Manuals and Videos (800) 932-4632

The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) offers a number of criminal justice resources, including manuals, instructional videos, pamphlets, and posters. The following manuals relate to batterer intervention:

o Accountability: Program Standards for Batterer Intervention Services ($15)

o Safety for Women: Monitoring Batterers' Programs ($25/$15 for domestic violence -- programs)

o Confronting Domestic Violence: Effective Police Response ($15)

o Prosecuting Domestic Violence Crimes: A Training Guide ($35)

o Seeking Justice: Legal Advocacy Principles and Practice ($50/$40 for domestic violence programs)

o Domestic Violence Protection Orders Handbook ($15)

Domestic Violence Behavioral Checklist

Michael Lindsay and Frank Robinson have developed a copyrighted page-long checklist to assist probation officers with batterer risk assessment. For information contact:

Frank Robinson, Ph.D. Department of Probation 18th Judicial District 1610 Littleton Boulevard Littleton, CO 80120 (303) 794-4890

National Organizations Concerned With Domestic Violence

The following national organizations provide current information concerning battering, batterer intervention, and legal issues related to battering.

Battered Women's Justice Project: (800) 903-0111

The project provides training, technical assistance, and resources through a partnership of three nationally recognized organizations. After dialing the central "800" number, callers may choose from three extensions:

o Extension #1: Domestic Abuse Intervention -- Project

Addresses the criminal justice system's response to domestic violence, including the development of batterer programs.

(612) 824-8768 (TDD) (612) 824-8965 (fax)

o Extension #2: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Addresses civil court access and legal representation issues of battered women. Provides comprehensive information, resources, policy development, and technical assistance designed to prevent domestic violence and to enhance community response.

(717) 671-4767 (717) 671-5542 (fax)

o Extension #3: National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women

Addresses battered women's self-defense issues.

(215) 351-0010 (215) 351-0779 (fax)

Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence 936 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 634-1903 (206) 634-0115 (fax)

Provides training and educational materials (articles, videos) to the religious community on sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence Family Violence Prevention Fund 383 Rhode Island Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA 94103-5133

(800) 313-1310 (415) 252-8991 (fax)

Provides specialized information packets designed to strengthen the health care response to domestic violence, as well as technical assistance and library services to support training and program development.

Resource Center on Child Custody and Child ProtectionNational Center for Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) P.O. Box 8970 Reno, NV 89507 (800) 527-3223 (702) 784-6160 (fax)

Provides information, consultation, technical assistance, and legal research related to child protection and custody issues within the context of domestic violence.

National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape 2325 Oak Street Berkeley, CA 94708 (510) 524-1582

Provides fee-based phone consultations ($30 per year for organizations / $15 per year for individuals, plus hourly rate) offering research assistance, referral to marital rape experts, information concerning State rape laws. Speakers bureau of marital or date rape survivors. Information packet including State law chart, bibliography, and statistics, $10, prepaid.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 18749 Denver, CO 80218 (303) 839-1852 (303) 831-9251 (fax)

Provides statistics, articles, and research assistance on domestic violence.

State Coalitions on Domestic Violence

The following coalitions may be contacted for information about local batterer interventions, shelters, and community coalitions concerned with domestic violence. In addition, many coalitions are involved with the development of batterer intervention standards or guidelines in their States.

Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 4762 Montgomery, AL 36101 (334) 832-4842 (334) 832-4803 (fax)

Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 130 Seward Street, Room 501 Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 586-3650 (907) 463-4493 (fax)

Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence 100 West Camelback Street, Suite 109 Phoenix, AZ 85013 (602) 279-2900 (602) 279-2980 (fax)

Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence #1 Sheriff Lane, Suite C Little Rock, AR 72114 (501) 812-0571 (501) 371-0450 (fax)

California Alliance Against Domestic Violence 619 Thirteenth Street, Suite I Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 524-1888 (209) 524-0616 (fax)

Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition P.O. Box 18902 Denver, CO 80218 (303) 831-9632 (303) 832-7067 (fax)

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence 135 Broad Street Hartford, CT 06105 (860) 524-5890 (860) 249-1408 (fax)

D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 76069 Washington, DC 20013 (202) 783-5332 (202) 387-5684 (fax)

Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 847 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-2958 (302) 658-5049 (fax)

Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1535 C-5 Killearn Center Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32308 (800) 500-1119 (904) 668-6862 (904) 668-0364 (fax)

Georgia Advocates for Battered Women and Children 250 Georgia Avenue, S.E., Suite 308 Atlanta, GA 30312 (800) 643-1212 (404) 524-3847 (404) 524-5959 (fax)

Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 98-939 Moanalua Road Aiea, HI 96701-5012 (808) 486-5072 (808) 486-5169 (fax)

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1540 High Street, Suite 100 Des Moines, IA 50309-3123 (800) 942-0333 (515) 244-8028 (515) 244-7417 (fax)

Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 200 North Fourth Street, Suite 10-K Boise, ID 83702 (208) 384-0419 (208) 331-0687 (fax)

Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence 730 East Vine Street, Suite 109 Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 789-2830 (217) 789-1939 (fax)

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence 2511 East 46th Street, Suite N-3 Indianapolis, IN 46205 (800) 332-7385 (317) 543-3908 (317) 568-4045 (fax)

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 820 S.E. Quincy, Suite 416 Topeka, KS 66612 (913) 232-9784 (913) 232-9937 (fax)

Kentucky Domestic Violence Association P.O. Box 356 Frankfort, KY 40602 (502) 875-4132 (502) 875-4268 (fax)

Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 3053 Hammond, LA 70404-3053 (504) 542-4446 (504) 542-6561 (fax)

Maine Coalition for Family Crisis Services 128 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 (207) 941-1194 (207) 941-2327 (fax)

Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 403 Silver Spring, MD 20902-1955 (800) MD-HELPS (301) 942-0900 (301) 929-2589 (fax)

Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women's Service Groups/Jane Doe Safety Fund 14 Beacon Street, Suite 507 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 248-0922 (617) 248-0902 (fax)

Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 16009 Lansing, MI 48901 (517) 484-2924 (517) 372-0024 (fax)

Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women 450 North Syndicate Street, Suite 122 St. Paul, MN 55104 (800) 646-0994 (in 612 Area Code) (573) 646-6177 (573) 646-1527 (fax)

Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence 331 Madison Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 (314) 634-4161 (314) 636-3728 (fax)

Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 4703 Jackson, MS 39296-4703 (800) 898-3234 (601) 981-9196 (601) 982-7372 (fax)

Montana Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 633 Helena, MT 59624 (406) 443-7794 (406) 449-8193 (fax)

Nebraska Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition 315 South Ninth #18 Lincoln, NE 68508-2253 (800) 876-6238 (402) 476-6256

Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence 2100 Capurro Way, Suite E Sparks, NV 89431 (800) 500-1556 (702) 358-1171 (702) 358-0546 (fax)

New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence P.O. Box 353 Concord, NH 03302-0353 (800) 852-3388 (603) 224-8893 (603) 228-6096 (fax)

New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women 2620 Whitehorse/Hamilton Square Road Trenton, NJ 08690 For Battered Lesbians: (800) 224-0211 (in NJ only) (609) 584-8107 (609) 584-9750 (fax)

New Mexico State Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 25363 Albuquerque, NM 87125 (800) 773-3645 (in NM only) (505) 246-9240 (505) 246-9434 (fax)

New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 79 Central Avenue Albany, NY 12206 (800) 942-6906 (518) 432-4864 (518) 432-4864 (fax)

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 51875 Durham, NC 27717 (919) 956-9124 (919) 682-1449 (fax)

North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services State Networking Office 418 East Rosser Avenue, Suite 320 Bismarck, ND 58501 (800) 472-2911 (in ND only) (701) 255-6240 (701) 255-1904 (fax)

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 4041 North High Street, Suite 101 Columbus, OH 43214 (800) 934-9840 (614) 784-0023 (614) 784-0033 (fax)

Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 2200 North Classen Blvd, Suite 610 Oklahoma City, OK 73801 (800) 522-9054 (405) 557-1210 (405) 557-1296 (fax)

Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 520 Northwest Davis Street, Suite 310 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 223-7411 (503) 223-7490 (fax)

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence/National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 6440 Flank Drive, Suite 1300 Harrisburg, PA 17112-2778 (800) 932-4632 (717) 545-6400 (717) 545-9456 (fax)

Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence 422 Post Road, Suite 104 Warwick, RI 02888 (800) 494-8100 (401) 467-9940 (401) 467-9943 (fax)

South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault P.O. Box 7776 Columbia, SC 29202-7776 (800) 260-9293 (803) 750-1222 (803) 750-1246 (fax)

South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault P.O. Box 141 Pierre, SD 57401 (800) 572-9196 (605) 945-0869 (605) 945-0870 (fax)

Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 120972 Nashville, TN 37212 (800) 356-6767 (615) 386-9406 (615) 383-2967 (fax)

Texas Council on Family Violence 8701 North Mopac Expressway, Suite 450 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 794-1133 (512) 794-1199 (fax)

Domestic Violence Advisory Council (Utah) 120 North 200 West Salt Lake City, UT 84145 (800) 897-LINK (801) 538-4100 (801) 538-3993 (fax)

Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual AssaultP.O. Box 405 Montpelier, VT 05601 (802) 223-1302 (802) 223-6943 (fax)

Virginians Against Domestic Violence 2850 Sandy Bay Road, Suite 101 Williamsburg, VA 23185 (800) 838-VADV (804) 221-0990 (804) 229-1553 (fax)

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 2101 Fourth Avenue East, Suite 103 Olympia, WA 98506 (800) 562-6025 (360) 352-4029 (360) 352-4078 (fax)

West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence P.O. Box 85 181B Main Street Sutton, WV 26601-0085 (304) 765-2250 (304) 765-5071 (fax)

Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1400 East Washington Avenue, Suite 232 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 255-0539 (608) 255-3560 (fax)

Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 341 East E. Street, Suite 135A Pinedale, WY 82601 (800) 990-3877 (307) 367-4296 (307) 235-4796 (fax)

 Information Concerning State and Local Standards and Guidelines on Batterer Intervention

The chart on pages 104-107 provides contact names, addresses, and telephone numbers for organizations and offices involved in administering or developing batterer intervention standards and guidelines. The information in appendix A, "State Standards Matrix," was current as of November 1996.

Selected Bibliography

General Information

Campbell, J.C., ed. Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.

Dutton, D. and S. Golant. The Batterer: A Psychological Profile. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

Edelson, J. and R.M. Tolman, Intervention for Men Who Batter: An Ecological Approach. Newbury Park, CA; Sage Publications, 1992.

Gelles, R. and D.R. Loseke. Current Controversies on Family Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

Pence, E. and M. Paymar, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer, 1993.

Sirles, E.A., S. Lipchik, and K. Kowalski. "A Consumer's Perspective on Domestic Violence Interventions." Journal of Family Violence, 8(3) (1993): 267.

Stosny, S. "Treating Attachment Abuse: The Compassion Workshop." In Treating Abusiveness, ed. Donald Dutton. New York: Guilford, 1996.

Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New York: Doubleday, 1980.

Straus, M. and R. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990.

Yllo, K. and M. Bograd. Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.

Resources for Practitioners

Adams, D., L. Bancroft, T. German, and C. Sousa. Program Manual: First State Groups for Men Who Batter. Quincy, MA: EMERGE, 1992.

Davies, J. Using Safety Planning As an Approach to Woman-Defined Advocacy. Legal Aid Society of Hartford County, CT, 1994.

Ganley, A. "Understanding Domestic Violence." In Improving the Health Care Response to Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Providers. Harrisburg, PA: Family Violence Prevention Fund and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, n.d.

Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service Groups. For Shelter and Beyond: Ending Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2d ed. Boston: Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service Groups, n.d.

Sousa, C., L. Bancroft, and T. German. "Preventing Teen Dating Violence: A Three Session Curriculum for Teaching Adolescents." Cambridge, MA: Dating Violence Intervention Project, n.d.

State of Iowa. Final Report of the Supreme Court Task Force on Courts' and Communities' Response to Domestic Abuse. State of Iowa, submitted to the Supreme Court of Iowa, August 1994.

Criminal Justice Issues

Buzawa, E. and C. Buzawa. Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Buzawa, E. and C. Buzawa. Domestic Violence, The Criminal Justice Response, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Hamberger, K.L. and J.E. Hastings. "Court-Mandated Treatment of Men Who Assault Their Partner: Issues, Controversies, and Outcomes." In Legal Responses to Wife Assault, ed. N. Z. Hilton, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993: 188- 229.

James, N. "Domestic Violence: A History of Arrest Policies and a Survey of Modern Laws." Family Law Quarterly, 28 (3) (1994): 509-515.

Rosenfeld, B.D. "Court-Ordered Treatment of Spouse Abuse." Clinical Psychology Review, 12 (1992): 205-226.

Syers, M. and J. Edelson. "The Combined Effects of Coordinated Criminal Justice Intervention in Woman Abuse." Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7: 490- 502.

Specialized Populations and Intervention Strategies

Browne, K., D.G. Saunders, and K.M. Staecker. "Process-Psychodynamic Groups for Men Who Batter: Description of a Brief Treatment Model." Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, January 26, 1996.

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.

Coleman, V.E. "The Relation Between Personality and Perpetration of Violence." Violence and Victims, 9 (2) (1994): 141.

Dutton, D. "Trauma Symptoms and PTSD-like Profiles in Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse." Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(2) (1995): 299-316.

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.

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.

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.

Island, D. and P. Letellier. Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence. New York: Harrington Park Press, n.d.

Saunders, D. "Husbands Who Assault: Multiple Profiles Requiring Multiple Responses." In Legal Responses to Wife Assault, ed. N.Z. Hilton, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

Saunders, D. "A Typology of Men Who Batter: Three Types Derived from a Cluster Analysis." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62 (2) (1992): 264- 275.

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.

Williams, O. and R.L. Becker. "Domestic Partner Abuse Treatment Programs and Cultural Competence: The Results of a National Survey." Violence and Victims, 9 (3) (1994): 287-296.

Government Publications Related to Domestic Violence

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Domestic Violence: Violence Between Intimates, Selected Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, November 1994. (NCJ-149259)

Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G. Holden. "Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence." Research in Action Series. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, September 1995.

Hofford, M. and A. Harrell. Family Violence: Interventions for the Justice System, Program Brief. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, October 1993. (NCJ-144532)

Langhan, P.A. and C.A. Innes. Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1986.

National Institute of Justice. Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Anti-Stalking Legislation, An Annual Report to Congress under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, April 1996.

Program Evaluation

Chen, H., C. Bersani, S.C. Myers, and R. Denton. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Court-Sponsored Abuser Treatment Program." Journal of Family Violence, 4 (1989): 309-322.

Davis, R.C. and B.G. Taylor. "Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A Synthesis of the Literature." Victim Services Research, New York, NY. Unpublished Manuscript, July 1997.

Davis, R.C. and B.G. Taylor. "A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of a Randomized Experiment." Criminology, 35 (2) (1997): 307-333.

Dobash, R., R.E. Dobash, K. Cavanagh, and R. Lewis. "Re-Education Programs for Violent Men -- An Evaluation." Research Findings, 46 (1996): 1-4.

Dutton, D.G. "The Outcome of Court-Mandated Treatment for Wife Assault: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation." Violence and Victims, 1(3) (1986): 163-175.

Edelson, J.L. and M. Syers. "Relative Effectiveness of Group Treatments for Men Who Batter." Social Work Research and Abstracts (June 1990): 10-17.

Gondolf, E.. "Batterer Intervention: What We Know and What We Need to Know." Paper presented at the Violence Against Women Strategic Planning Meeting, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, March31, 1995.

Gondolf, E. "Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems: A Summary of Preliminary findings." Working Paper, Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute, October 24, 1996.

Hamberger, K.L. and J.E. Hastings. "Recidivism Following Spouse Abuse Abatement Counseling: Treatment Program Implications." Violence and Victims, 5 (3) (1990): 157-170.

Harrell, A. Evaluation of Court Ordered Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders, Final Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, October 1991.

Palmer, S.E., R.A. Brown, and M.E. Barrera. "Group Treatment Program for Abusive Husbands: Long-Term Evaluation." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2) (1992): 276-283.

Saunders, D.G. "Interventions for Men Who Batter: Do We Know What Works? In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 2 (3) (1996): 81-93.

Batterer Intervention- Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies