Court-Ordered vs. Voluntary Batterer Intervention Programs

Introduction: Goal Setting and Therapeutic Motivation

It has long been recognized that clients must have the mindset and goals set forth for themselves if they are to succeed in a therapeutic change process. Whether the goal is to change behavioral or emotional problems, the client must be motivated by their own desires to change. Lee, Uken, and Sebold (2007) state that, oftentimes in the therapy process, a client will know that he or she needs to change; however, they do not have any indication of when the problem has been successfully dealt with — or when they are successfully changing their behavior. Because there are no indicators for them without goals, long-term therapy is often the result, sometimes with successful outcomes and sometimes not. Goal setting becomes a vital part of successful treatment "because it gauges clients' progress toward beneficial solutions to their problems" (Maple, 1998; Lee et al., 2007).

There is reason to believe that court-ordered batterers — who may feel resentment, anger, and blame toward their sentence — may not have the ability to recognize that they must change their behavior. As a result, they will not set goals for themselves, nor will they want to actively engage in the therapeutic process. This could contribute to recidivism among these batterers. The ability to recognize one's faults and flaws and to develop a goal plan for correcting them is vital for recovery.

The question of whether court-ordered batterer intervention is effective has been discussed quite extensively over the last decade. Rosenberg (2003) found that some of the most helpful elements when intervening in domestic violence cases are relational in nature. Group support and therapist alliances were considered the most helpful elements, according to Rosenberg's (2003) study of male and female domestic violence perpetrators one year after completing a 52-week court-mandated intervention program. However, debate continues about whether court-mandated programs can genuinely compel people to change.

Babcock, Green, and Robie (2004) found through their meta-analytic review of 22 studies evaluating treatment efficacy for domestically violent males that treatment, overall, tended to have a very small effect on individuals. "Effects due to treatment were in the small range, meaning that the current interventions have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond the effect of being arrested" (Babcock et al., 2004).

Hypothesis

Court-ordered batterer intervention courses are not effective in preventing further domestic violence behavior by offenders as compared to voluntary enrollment in batterer intervention courses.

Methods and Participants

The participants of the study will consist of two equal groups: male inmates who have been convicted of domestic violence assault — including assaults that caused homicide or serious injury — and who have been court-ordered to attend a batterer intervention program; and male participants in batterer intervention courses who have not been court-mandated to attend. The demographic represented will be male participants in batterer intervention courses in the state of Maine, encompassing both voluntary and involuntary participants. All males will be of legal age (18 and older), and will either be presently incarcerated and taking court-mandated courses, or voluntarily attending batterer intervention courses outside of incarceration.

A minimum of 100 male participants who are presently enrolled in batterer intervention courses will be included — 50 court-mandated and 50 voluntary participants. Recruitment will be conducted through the WorkReady program at each facility in the state of Maine, as well as through batterer intervention course institutions. The study is utilizing a large group of participants in the hope of achieving an effective random sample. Participants will represent a mix of races, ages, and cultural backgrounds.