search | site index | faq | about us | what's new
Edward W. Gondolf, EdD, MPH
Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute,
1098 Oakland Avenue, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, PA 15705,Phone: 412-357-4749: Fax:
412-357-3944
Publication Date: April, 1996
Many individuals and agencies have contributed to this first phase of our multi-site evaluation of batterer intervention. The program directors at the four research sites offered essential assistance in developing and implementing the data collection: Robert Foster, Toby Myers, Sherry Lundberg, and Robert Gallup. Several research assistants; especially Jennifer Daly, Jody Scruggs, Don Bozich, and Paul Burchfield; helped to administer questionnaires and test materials at the sites, along with assistance from staff at the respective sites. Jeff Coben, Ron Laporte, and Ed Ricci of the University of Pittsburgh have served as co-investigators. Jewel Lee Doherty, project director, Crystal Deemer, administrative assistant, Neil Fulton, data manager, and several data entry workers, graduate assistants, and student staff of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute provided a variety of support, supervision, and service. The Texas Council on Family Violence, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute, Graduate School of Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and Center for Injury Research and Control at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, all contributed to the development of the research proposal and coordinating its implementation. The research was made possible through a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Grant number R49/CCR310525-02).
Th characteristics of batterers in court-referred programs have significant implications for program development and evaluation research. Background and test data, including information from the MAST and MCMI-III, were systematically collected from four geographically distributed batterer programs as part of our multi-site evaluation of batterer intervention. Cross-tabulations using chi square were used to describe the characteristics of the program enrollees overall and across the sites.
The men demographically appeared similar to previous portrayals of court-referred batterers, except that our sample had a greater portion of African American and Latino men than previous studies. According to formalized screening tests, over half of the men were apparently "alcoholic," and over a quarter had severe mental problems (major clinical syndromes [Axis I disorders] or severe personality pathology [Axis II disorders]). No distinct personality profile, however, emerged. Self-reports for heavy drinking and for depression produce similar prevalence rates as formalized testing instruments; however, they do not successfully identify alcoholism or depressive disorders in individual cases.
Several dichotomies appear among the men that might influence intervention, such as differences in living arrangements (over half are not living with their partners and nearly half are), education (a quarter without a high school diploma and a third with some college), employment (a third under employed versus two-thirds fully employed), and drinking (nearly a third seldom used alcohol versus a half who reported heavy drinking). Over half of the men in our sample have been previously arrested.
As practitioners assert, the men appear to grossly under report their abusive behavior with only about 40% acknowledging their recent assaults, and less than a fifth admitting to using severe tactics in the last three months. Over 40% of the partners responded by contacting the criminal justice system sometime in the past, but only about an eighth of the women had previously contacted a women's shelter or a counseling service about their being abused.
The four sites reflected regional differences in demographics, but had relatively similar portions of men with mental and drinking problems despite these differences. One site did have significantly more men reporting alcohol-related fights and drug use (20%) and another had more men involved in alcohol or mental health treatment. The men at one site were, moreover, significantly more likely to report recent assaults, but less likely to report assaults in the past. This difference may reflect differences in levels of disclosure related to a minor difference in the data collection procedures. The men's report of injury (a fifth of the women sought medical help in the past) and the women's response to the abuse were similar for all four sites.
Additional research will examine possible types or categories of batterers, discrepancies between the men's report of abuse and the women's reports, and the effect of batterer characteristics on program outcome.
Issues:The characteristics of men in batterer programs are important to the domestic violence field for three main reasons. One, many of the speculations about appropriate intervention and treatment for batterers rests on assumptions about their characteristics and behavior ( Tolman & Bennett, 1993). Two, the characteristics of men in a program contribute to program outcome and therefore need to be considered in evaluating program effectiveness. Three, batterer characteristics of a particularly program assists in determining how representative a sample of men are of other programs. One program may appear more effective than another simply because it has different "kinds" of men in it.
Several generalizations have emerged about batterers' characteristics. On one hand, there are profiles that describe the typical or predominant batterer in programs. These point to younger men in their late twenties to early thirties, who are under employed laborers, often with drinking problems, prior arrest records, and personality problems ( Eisikovits & Edleson, 1989; Tolman & Bennett, 1990). On the other hand, there is an increasing interest in typologies that propose a few major categories of batterers ( Gondolf, 1988; Saunders, 1992). A recent summary of typology research suggests three categories: one of men who are highly dominating, and narcissistic; another of men who tend to be impulsive, dependent on their partners and who are highly jealous, controlling and reactive; and a third category of men who are generally antisocial, negativistic, and defiant and who are generally violent and sadistic ( Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994).
These findings are drawn primarily from studies of single program sites that often employ different measures, information, and data collection procedures. In order to verify and elaborate these previous findings, a more systematic study of batterer characteristics is needed. The ideal would be data collected from a variety of program sites with geographical representation and using consistent measures and procedures.
Research Questions:The attention to batterer characteristics poses several fundamental questions for researchers and practitioners alike to examine:
We might speculate, as well, on the implications that the answers to these questions have for program development and future research.
We explored these questions using data derived from our multi-site evaluation of batterer interventions systems funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The data is drawn from men enrolling in court-referred batterer programs in four different cities nationwide. The data collection measures and procedures, as described below, were consistent across the four sites enabling us to approach the ideal for the representation and comparison of several programs. We first summarize the batterer characteristics in our total sample combining all four sites (n=840). The demographics, alcohol use and mental health, and abusive behavior (controls, threats, and assaults) are described using the indicators derived from a background questionnaire, personality test, and alcohol screening test. The significant differences among the four program sites are noted in a second section. A concluding section attempts to highlight the major findings, suggest some program implications, and discuss possibilities for further analyses using our data base.
Research Sites:The database from our evaluation study offers the most systematic and consistent data on batterers to date and is particularly suited for addressing the prevailing questions about the characteristics of men referred to batterer programs. The first phase of the study included recruiting and testing 200-215 subjects at four different urban sites for the Northeast, Central South, and West of the United States. The sites represent model programs ranging in their program duration (3 to 9 months) and extent of services (basic batterer education to victim assistance). Site 1 is the shortest in duration and extent of services, and Site 2 is the longest and most comprehensive, with Sites 3 and 4 in between the two in terms of duration and extent. By model programs, we mean that they comply with their respective state standards from batterer programs and implement curriculum that approximates the cognitive-behavioral approach registered in the prevailing published manuals in the field ( Kivel, 1992; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Russell, 1995; Stordeur Stille, 1989). In terms of their linkage to the courts, association with victim services, and provision of additional services, the programs, however, represent varying intervention systems. A research assistant administered the research materials to a monthly quota of men who appeared at the program site for enrollment. Only 5% of the men refused to complete and submit the research materials, suggesting that the respondents are highly representative of the men contacting the program during the subject recruitment period of 1995.
Sample: The men in the sample are predominately men that were arrested for domestic abuse and referred or mandated by the court to a batterer program. Men who came to the programs voluntarily or were referred by another source were also included in the sample. Men referred to the program were excluded if the victim was not an intimate female partner. Our sample does not account for men who might have been ordered or referred to the programs but did not comply. The predominantly urban sample also does necessarily represent suburban or rural programs.
Nearly a fifth of the men (18%) were voluntary program participants (13% of these men were referred by a mental health counselor). The "voluntary" men were likely to be better educated (53% had some college education versus 33% of the court referrals; X2=20.22[3]; p=.001), and white collar workers (52% versus 32%; X2=16.66[1]; p=.001) than the court-referred men, as with previous comparisons of voluntary and court-referred men ( Saunders & Parker, 1989). They also were about 10% more likely to have been fully employed, married, received mental health treatment, and obtained other counseling (these differences were not statistically significant, however). The voluntary and court mandated men were similar, however, in terms of racial composition, heavy drinking, and living arrangements. Nearly all of the men at Site 1 [94%] were court referred, primarily because the program at the time referred "voluntary" participants to independent counselors.
An additional structural difference emerged in our examination of the background data. The amount of time from court date to program intake varied considerably across the sites (see Table 1). While the average referral time was overall two months (M=8.4 weeks; sd=9.6), the delay ranged from two and a half weeks (M=2.6 weeks.; sd=1.9) at Site 1 to four months (M=16.0; sd=12.3) at Site 3 (F=32.24 [3, 839]; p=.001). This translates into as few as 4% of the men at Site 1 waiting 3 months before intake at a batterers program, as opposed to nearly a third (30%) of the men at Site 2, a half (46%) at Site 4, and over 3/4 (78%) at Site 3. The variation, at face value, appears to reflect the different referral systems used at the various sites, ranging from judicial referral directly to the program at a preliminary hearing, to referral from individual probation officers following a formal conviction. The linkage to the courts varies as well. Site 1 employs a court liaison to receive men at their hearing, and other sites rely on program staff that serve in the court as liaisons to probation officers to refer men who are part of their caseload.
The actual times from arrest to the court date and program intake to group enrollment are likely to vary as well, but we did not systematically collect data on these steps of the process. We know from observation that the time from arrest to court appearance at Site 1 is on average under a week, but tends to be substantially longer at that other sites due to different court systems and linkages. Also, the time from program intake to enrollment in a group session tends to vary across the sites depending on assessment procedures and program openings. Site 1 again appears to have the shortest time from intake to group enrollment structured into their system. Therefore, differences in the time from arrest to beginning the program are likely to be even more dramatic than those reflected in time from court date to research intake, which is reported above.
The variation in referral time may contribute to some differences in reported characteristics and abuse with certain types of men more likely to dropout or disappear during the referral delays ( Gondolf & Foster, 1991). It may also influence outcome in terms of providing time for "cooling off," additional interventions, or eventual separation from one's partner, all of which may improve program outcome. Deterrence studies suggest, on the other hand, that the closer the intervention is to the crime, the more effective it tends to be ( Fagan, 1989). We can test all these speculations further across and within sites in the outcome study in progress.
The research materials included a background questionnaire that asked about the men's demographics, living situation, parent's behavior, mental health problems, alcohol use, prior treatment and counseling, abusive behavior, previous arrests, partner's response, and partner's helpseeking. Several of the questions represent self-report indicators for alcohol abuse and mental disorders, such as depression. The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST; Selzer, 1971) was also administered. This test is comprised of 25 weighted items about drinking behavior and drinking-related problems. The scoring system is designed to detect potential alcoholism despite the tendencies of alcoholics to deny their drinking problems (a total score of 5 or more indicates the potential for alcoholism). The men also completed the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (version III; MCMI) which includes 175 true-false items used to detect personality disorders and major mental disorders through 24 subscales ( Million, 1994). (Only 1.4% of the MCMI tests completed by our subjects were identified as invalid according to the validity measure incorporated in the test.) A computerized scoring system calculates the base rate scores (BR scores) on each subscale ranging from 0 to 115; a score of 75 or over suggests that symptoms for a particular disorder are above the norm, or "present," and a score of 85 or over suggest the "prominence" of a possible disorder. It is important to note that the MCMI is designed primarily as a clinical tool to assist in assessing and diagnosing individuals. The subscale scores are generally combined as a "profile" that is interpreted drawing on clinical experience, observation, and other sources. The MCMI scores by themselves may over predict personality disorders in batterers, according to comparisons with other personality tests ( Hart, Dutton, & Newlove, 1993).
The following analyses were conducted to provide an overview of the batterer characteristics. The ordinal and inventory responses on the background questionnaire were collapsed primarily into dichotomous variables to facilitate interpretation of a large set of variables and comparisons among the sites. The collapse variables also tend to represent "markers" frequently used by clinicians to describe clients (e.g., employed versus under-employed, married versus not married, drug use versus no drug use). To help summarize inventories (e.g., the Conflict Tactics Scale [ Straus, 1979] for assaultive behaviors, or list of possible alcohol treatments), variables for having answered "yes" to any of the categories were developed as well as for the "total" number of categories answered in a particular inventory. The total scores for the MAST were computed using the weights prescribed for each item, and the batterers scoring above the MAST cut score (5 or greater) were identified as possibly "alcoholic." We also examined various items on the MAST (e.g., drunk drinking, alcohol-related fights) to further describe the alcohol-related behavior of the men. Finally, the BR scores on the MCMI were categorized as 75 or greater to represent those individuals with evidence of a possible "disorder." We refer to these individuals as "scoring positive" on a particular subscale (BR less than 75).
Cross-tabulations of the background variables and sites were used to examine differences across the sites, and cross-tabulations of potentially related variables were also used to test for associations. Chi square at the .01 significance level was used as the test statistic. The relatively conservative significance level compensates for the large sample size (n=840) which raises the prospect for significant results. While statistically significant differences for some variables exist among the sites, the clinical significance or impact of such differences may be minimal. The analyses, moreover, must be considered exploratory and tentative at this stage. More complex multivariate analyses using more detailed responses may detect further relationships and patterns among the variables.
There are two other areas that warrant caution. The selection and representation of characteristics suggests a deficit approach to batterers. That is, we tend to focus on characteristics that represent a lack of some positive or preferred aspect, or the presence of something negative or undesirable. This focus does help highlight areas that might warrant special attention during intervention or treatment; however, the strengths, changes, and possibilities of men ultimately need to be recognized and heightened as well. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the data is based on the reports of batterers only. There are likely to be substantial discrepancies between the men's self-reports and the reports of their partners, especially given the tendency of batterers to minimize and deny their abuse. The men's self-reports are still of interest because they represent the primary, or at least most immediate, information available to batterer program staff and the courts. Verifying reports have been obtained from the men's partners and will be compared to the men's reports in subsequent studies.
The characteristics of the men in our sample suggest the prevailing generalization of a younger, working class man with a high school education, who may or may not be married being the most likely to appear in programs. A closer look at our descriptive statistics, however, reveals a diversity of men marked by some important dichotomies in terms of race, age, education, employment, and marital status (see Table 1).
Demographics:The batterers in our four sites were on average in their early thirties (M=32; sd=8.8) with 2/3 of the men being between 23 and 41 years of age. A substantial portion (22%) of the men were under 25, nearly a third (31%) were over 35. Slightly over one half (45%) were men of color (31% African American, 18% Latino, and 6% other races). Almost one quarter of the men (24%) did not have a high school education, but over a third (36%) had some college education. A third (36%) were under-employed (working only part-time [20%] or unemployed [16%]), and 64% were working full-time. (An additional 7% were either disabled, students, or retired.) Employment status was, however, not significantly related to education level (X2=2.18[2]; p=.336); nor was this relationship significantly influenced by racial background (employment by education by race). Men of color were, however, about 10% more likely to be unemployed or part-time employed than other men (41% versus 31%; X2=8.93[1]; p=.003). Nearly 2/3 of the men could be classified as blue collar workers (skilled and semi-skilled laborers), while 17% indicated they were professionals, administrators, or managers.
Living Arrangements:Over half were not married and one half were not living with a partner. As one might expect, the married men were more likely to be living with their partners (60% of married men were currently living with their partners versus 41% of non-married men; X2=30.02[1]; p=.001). Half of the men (51%) did not have children living with them, but this was also influenced by whether they were living with their partner or not. The men were over twice as likely to have children living with them if they were living with their partner (67% versus 24%, X2=161.57[1]; p=.001). African American men were the least likely to not be married (59%) as compared to whites (24%), Latinos (44%), and other races (52%) (X2=8.38[3]; p=.039). Studies of battered women in shelters suggest a similar tendency with regard to martial status and associate it with differences in economic opportunities and cultural traditions ( Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1991).
Summary:The demographics of the batterers in our overall sample suggest that men of very different socio-economic and racial background are likely to be sitting next to one another in the group sessions of batterer programs. A substantial portion of men do not have a high school diploma and probably need assistance with written materials, while a similar amount have some college education. A significant group is under-employed and probably coping with financial problems, while a notable portion of men are in substantial white collar jobs. The programs' curriculums focus on one's relationship with his or her partner, yet at least half of the men were not married and half were not living with a partner.
Alcohol and Violence:As in previous research on batterers (see Tolman & Bennett, 1990), a substantial portion of the men in our sample acknowledged being raised in troubled families--where their parents were physically abusive or had an alcohol/drug problem (see Table 1). Over a third of the men (36%) identified a parent as having a drug and/or alcohol "problem. Nearly a third (33%) acknowledged that their parents hit one or the other, and a quarter (26%) claimed to be physically "harmed" by their parents while they were growing up. Parents were twice as likely to have hit one another (60% versus 18%; X2=142.86[1]; p=001), and almost three times as likely to have harmed the man (43% versus 15%; X2=74.43[1]; p=001), if they were identified as having a drinking or drug problem. Only 8% of the parents without a drinking problem and who did not hit one another had harmed their sons (X2=69.05[1]; p=001). The men with problem drinking parents were predictably more likely to report being heavy drinkers themselves (drinking on a weekly or daily basis), or prone to drunkenness (drunk two times or more in the past three months)--but they were only 10-15% more likely to be heavy drinkers or drunk than men without problem parents (heavy drinkers=43% versus 35%; X2=4.72[1]; p=.030; and drunk=67% versus 51%; X2=21.61[1]; p=.001).
Summary:A substantial portion of the batterers admitted to violence and alcohol being problems in their family of origin. The parents' drinking problems appear to contribute to the violence in the home and to the man's eventual drinking, as previous research suggests ( Gondolf & Foster, 1991). It is significant that reporting of parental problems is as high as it is, given that these sorts of "private" issues tend to be under reported or denied. The men's recognizing and acknowledging such problems suggest that these particular men are especially conscious of their past and its impacts, and/or that the actual rate of parental alcohol problems and physical abuse is extremely high.
Self-reported Problems:The mental health of the men in our sample was assessed through self-reports on a conventional inventory of psychological problems (7 items) and through scores on the MCMI subscales. Few batterers reported problems on the inventory which might be associated with major mental disorders, but a substantial portion acknowledged emotional problems and even serious depression (see Table 2). Specifically, a quarter to a third of the men reported serious emotional states during the past three months in the form of angry outbursts (35%), serious anxiety (27%), or mood swings (24%). Nearly one fifth (18%) admitted suffering serious depression in the last 3 months. Two-fifths (41%) of the men did not report any problems on the self-report inventory, while almost a third (29%) reported two or more problems (outbursts, anxiety, mood swings, serious depression, suicide, thoughts of killing, hearing voices).
The relationship between past suicide and current depression implies that the current depression of at least a third of the men may be long-term rather than a reaction to the men's immediate situation. Of those reporting recent depression, nearly a third (31%) reported previous suicide threats or attempts, as opposed to only 7% of those not depressed (X2= 55.71(1); p=.001). Twelve percent (12%) of the men overall reported having threatened or attempted suicide sometime in the past. Only small percentage of the men acknowledged more serious symptomatology in the form of recent suicide ideation (7%), homicide ideation (3%), or auditory hallucinations (1%) occurring in the past three months. Over one fifth (22%) of the men had received some form of mental treatment sometime in their past, either in the form of prescribed medication (8%), mental health counseling (16%), or psychiatric hospitalization (6%). A small percentage (6%) were currently on medication.
MCMI Results:The results of the MCMI suggest that as much as a fifth of the men may have what are considered to be major mental disorders (DSM-IV: Axis I disorders excluding anxiety disorder, and alcohol and drug dependence) (see Table 5). At least half of these men (or 11% of the total sample) acknowledged symptoms of major depression. In addition, nearly 40% of the men also appeared to have an anxiety disorder. This surprisingly high level of anxiety may reflect the men's response to being arrested and ordered to the batterer programs.
Similar to men tested with the MCMI at a Midwestern program ( Hamberger & Hastings, 1991), nearly all of the men (90% in our 4-site sample versus 88% in the midwest) had scored positive (BR score is less than 75) on at least one of the subscales for personality disorders (Axis II disorders). Nearly half of the men in our four-site sample achieved a score (BR is less than 85) on one of the personality subscales (Axis II), suggesting a personality pattern was "prominent" as opposed to "present." However, only 16% of the men showed at least minimal evidence of what are considered severe personality pathologies (BR is less than 75 for schizotypal, borderline, or paranoid disorders).
Previous MCMI Studies:As suggested in previous research on batterers using the MCMI ( Beasley & Stoltenberg, 1992; Hart, Dutton, & Newlove, 1993; Hamberger & Hastings, 1991), there was not a prominent or typical set of personality problems among the batterers. Over a third (38%) of the men scored high (BR is less than 75) on at least 4 or more of the 14 personality subscales, suggesting a complex pattern of personality problems. Moreover, the evidence for some of the notable generalizations about batterer personalities was lacking. For instance, a low portion of men in our sample scored positive on the borderline (6%) and compulsive (10%) personality subscales ( Hart, Dutton, & Newlove, 1993; Dutton & Starzomski, 1993). Also, very few scored positive on post-traumatic stress syndrome (4%), contrary to a previous study with a smaller clinical sample from a Canadian program ( Dutton, 1995). The men were most likely to score positive on the narcissistic (25%), passive-aggressive (24%), antisocial (19%), and depressive (19%) subscales. Interestingly, the prevalence rate for a depressive personality disorder (19%) is equivalent to the rate for those reporting recent "serious depression" (18%).
A factor analysis of the basic personality scores (excluding the three subscales for clinical "personality pathology") produced two primary factors (Eigenvalue >1) approximating an anti-social/passive-aggressive factor (51% of the variance) and a schizoidal/borderline factor (14% of the variance), as compared to a three factor structure of schizoidal/ borderline (44% of the variance), narcissistic/ antisocial (25%), and passive dependent/compulsive (11%) from the midwestern program study ( Hamberger & Hastings, 1991). (The difference in factors may in part be due to the use of the MCMI-III with our sample, as opposed to the MCMI-II with the other.) The factors, which do not of themselves indicate "types," were used to identify 8 different personality types in the midwestern program.
Summary:At least a third of the batterers did report agitated emotional states that are likely to correspond to their recent abuse and arrests. Most notably, almost a fifth reported being seriously depressed, and at least a third of these had a history of suicide threats or attempts. A higher portion of the men than expected have received some mental treatment, but few admitted to ever being hospitalized. There is little evidence of major mental disorders on a conventional inventory; however, a personality test (MCMI) suggests that over a quarter (29%) of the men may have major disorders (Axis I, excluding anxiety, alcohol, and drug disorders) or a severe personality pathology (Axis II schizotypal, borderline, or paranoid personality disorder).
Self-reported psychological problems do not successfully identify corresponding disorders registered on the MCMI, even though prevalence rates for the self-report of recent depression and anxiety are equivalent to the rates for depressive personality disorder and anxiety disorder derived from formalized testing. (Reported depression identifies only 40-45% of those scoring positive on the MCMI for depression-related disorders.) Reliance on self-reports to screen for mental disorders may not, consequently, be a sufficient. It remains unclear what disorders affect program compliance or outcome, and need to be systematically identified and addressed. Ideally, our multi-site outcome will offer some indications in this regard.
Self-reported Alcohol Use:According to both self-reports and the MAST, the portion of men with drinking problems is at the high end of the range generally ascribed to arrested batterers (see Tolman & Bennett, 1990). Approximately a third of them in our sample, moreover, have alcohol-related behavioral problems, such as drunk-driving arrests and fights. Nearly 38% of the men actually admitted to what might be considered heavy drinking (drinking at least weekly) or to being a recovering alcoholic (9%) when asked about their frequency of their current drinking (see Table 2). A quarter of the men admitted to drinking at least few times per week to everyday. Over a half (57%) indicated they were drunk at least twice in the last three months with a fifth (21%) drunk once a week or more. By contrast, almost a third of the men (31%) reported that they did not drink during the past year. (This amount includes the 9% of men who identified themselves as being in "recovery".) The men claimed that nearly as many of their partners were heavy drinkers (32%) or were as frequently drunk (48%) as they were. A fifth (20%) of the men admitted to using marijuana in the past year, and 10% had used other drugs during the previous year.
In response to a series of questions about treatment, a quarter (26%) of the men responded that they had been in alcohol or drug treatment sometime in the past: either detox (5%), self-help groups including AA or NA (15%), or inpatient or outpatient treatment (16%). Ten percent of the men had received alcohol treatment and mental health treatment sometime in their past, and nearly half of the men (48%) had received some other form of counseling.
MAST Results:The screening test for alcohol abuse (Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test [MAST]) indicated that over half (56%) of the men in our sample may be considered "alcoholic" (see Table 6). (The more liberal cut score [4 points or more] often used with clinical populations suggests that as much as 64% of the sample may be alcoholic.) Specific items on the screening test illustrate the nature of the drinking and related behavior (see Table 6). Forty-one percent (41%) of the men admitted they are not "normal drinkers" on the screening test, a third (34%) admitted they have difficulty stopping after two drinks, and over a quarter (28%) acknowledged attending Alcoholics Anonymous in the past. About a third of the men have severe behavioral problems associated with their drinking (31% scored 10 points or more on the MAST) in the form of alcohol-related fights (31%), drunk driving (24%),or other alcohol related arrests (20%). (The amount of drunk driving may be lowered by the fact that many of the inner city men do not have cars or walk to and from local bars.) Half of the men (49%) admitted to being previously arrested for any offense other than domestic violence, irrespective of drinking.
There were some encouraging similarities in the prevalence rates of self-reported alcohol abuse and the test results for alcoholism and dependence. The rate of men reporting heavy drinking or alcohol recovery approximates the rate scoring as "alcoholic" on the MAST, and the rate reporting frequent drunkenness (at least once a week) approximates the rate testing as "alcohol dependent" on the MCMI. (The MCMI alcohol subscale is sensitive to addiction with a psychological basis, rather than heavy drinking and problem behavior as in the MAST.) However, the "heavy drinking" correctly corresponds to the MAST classifications (cut score 5) in 54% of the cases, and "frequent drunkenness" corresponds to the MCMI alcohol dependency subscale (BR 75) in 64% of the cases.
Summary:Our findings regarding alcohol use substantiate the general impression that a disproportionately high percentage of men in batterers programs have alcohol problems. Well over half of the batterers in our sample screen positive for alcoholism and nearly as many men admitted to heaving drinking or drunkenness. At least a third have serious behavioral problems associated with their drinking, as well. As suggested with regard to other characteristics, the batterers in our sample pose, however, a dichotomy with regard to drinking. While a substantial portion have serious drinking problems, almost a third currently do not drink or seldom drink. While self-reports of drinking frequency and an alcohol screening test indicate similar prevalence levels of alcoholism, the self-report and test results do not substantially correspond for individuals. As with mental disorders, programs may need to use assessment tools for alcohol abuse.
Not surprisingly, the men in our sample admitted to a relatively low level of abuse in the form of control, threats, and assaults (see Table 3). The abuse that they did report is often classified as the less severe forms ( Straus, 1979), yet a substantial portion of the men did tell of their partner's seeking medical attention for injuries. The vast majority did not think that they would be violent in the near future.
Control:Very few of the men (less than 10%) admitted to controlling behaviors often associated with abusive relationships (e.g., stopping a woman from going someplace, ordering her off the phone, keeping her from friends, limiting her access to family finances, following her against her will) during the past three months. A fifth of the men (19%) had committed at least one of these controlling behaviors. Nearly half of the men (46%), however, indicated that they had swore, screamed, or insulted their partner in the past three months, and about a fifth of the men had accused their partner of being with another man (18%), or threw, smashed, or banged something (23%).
Threats:Similarly, over a quarter of the men (29%) acknowledged making threats of some sort in the previous three months. Very few (less than 5%) conceded making what battered women rate as the most serious kinds of threats (threatening to kill the partner, take or ham the children, kill or hurt others, kill or hurt oneself), as opposed to threatening to throw something (17%) or threatening to hit, harm, or attack one's partner (13%).
Assaults:The obvious discrepancy appears with the men's reports of assaults on the Conflict Tactics Scale ( Straus, 1979). Less than half of the men (42%) reported some form of assault during the last three months, even though this 3-month period includes the arrest incident that brought the men to the program reporting-period for "recent" abuse. A portion of the men (36%) were, however, arrested prior to the 3-month. Over half (58%) of these men reported no assaults; this accounts for a fifth (21%) of the total cases reporting no assaults because the arrest incident was more than three months ago. Conversely, nearly 40% of the recently arrested men denied committing an assault.
The overall severity of abuse appears to be minimized as well. Only a small portion of the men (less than 10%) reported severe forms of violence for the previous three months (as defined by the Conflict Tactics Scale: hit with fist, kick, bit; hit with something, beat up, burned or scald, choked, threatened with a weapon, used a weapon, forced sex). Less than a fifth (18%) of the men indicate using two tactics, or more during that period or committing a serve assault (17%). Only 1% indicated using weapons or forcing sex.
Past Assaults:Some hint of severity emerges in the reports about past abuse and injury. Approximately 60% (59%) of the men did concede to assaulting a partner sometime in the past with a third (32%) reporting the use of a so-called "severe" tactic against their partners. Half (52%) of the sample acknowledged causing bruises sometime in the past, and a fifth (19%) of the men reported their partner sought medical help because of injuries they caused. Only 5% of the men admitted to "physically striking" their children in the past three months. This low percentage may be influenced in part by the fact that over half (56%) of the men currently have no children living with them, and that the respondents were notified that the researchers may have to report child abuse.
Half of the men (51%) insisted that the first assault occurred within the past year, and nearly a third (31%) admitted that the first incident was three years or more ago. However, at the initial program contact, only 15% of the men conceded that they are likely to be violent again in the next three months (somewhat likely, very likely, or uncertain)--that is, the vast majority of men (85%) think they will not be violent in the near future.
Summary:The low level of abuse reported by the batterers, even though the report period encompassed their arrest for battering, confirms the common concern about men's tendency to underreport or deny abuse. The men also appeared overconfident about stopping their abuse with the vast majority predicting they would not be violent in the near future. These apparent tendencies support the need for programs to address the minimization of abuse and to seek corroborating information about batterers' domestic violence arrests and their abusive behavior in general. It tends to support, moreover, the component of many court-referred programs devoted to defining abuse and prompting men to admit their abuse.
The battered women, according to the men, responded to men's abuse primarily through personal strategies (in striking back, threatening separation, going to a friend's house) and the criminal justice system (police calls, protection orders, pressing charges). Only a small portion of the women had previously contacted a shelter or social service agency. (See Table 4).
Partner Aggression:From the men's point of view, the women were nearly as aggressive as they were, but much more likely to need medical help for their injuries. Approximately 40% of the men (39%) claimed that their partners assaulted them during the past three months--nearly the same proportion of men (42%) who reported assaulting the partner during the same time period. In the vast majority of cases (80%), the men who reported assaulting their partners were the ones who reported their partner acting violent toward them. A quarter of the men (26%) claimed their partners committed an act that might be considered "severe" (according to the Conflict Tactics Scale), as compared to a fifth of the men (17%) admitting severe tactics toward their partners. This pattern holds for violence reported happening ever in the past: 59% of the men admitted violence toward their partners, and 52% claim being assaulted by their partners in the past. There was a more distinct difference in terms of past injury, with a third of the men (37%) reporting being bruised or injured and only 5% reporting ever seeking medical help for injuries, as opposed to over half (52%) of the women being bruised and a fifth (19%) of them seeking medical help.
Helpseeking:Over two thirds of the women (68%) responded by also seeking help sometime in the past. According to the men, the women tended to turn to what might be considered "personal" or "informal" help sources in response to the men's abuse. Approximately one third (38%) threatened divorce or separation, and a quarter (26%) stayed overnight a friend's or relative's residence. However, only a small percentage (14%) sought counseling (10%) or contacted a shelter (7%) ever in the past. These battered women instead appeared to rely on law enforcement: 40% of the women had contacted law enforcement either through a call to the police (32% prior to the current incident that brought the man to the program), obtaining a protection order (15%), seeking legal assistance (5%), or pressing criminal charges (9%).
Summary:The men's report of women's aggressive response to their abuse raises several issues. It verifies many men's tendency to accuse their partners' of being abusive and their perception of abuse as a "two-way" street. Many practitioners in the field argue that this tendency is a means to deflect responsibility for one's abuse by blaming one's partner and justify one's own violent behavior ( Pence & Paymar, 1993). The men's reports also corroborate the concern that a behavioral checklist of abuse, such as the Conflict Tactics Scale, may grossly distort the dynamics and nature of battering. In subsequent analysis using our multi-site database, we will be able to compare the women's narrative accounts of battering and descriptions of the battering on police reports with the men's reports on the tactics checklist. Finally, the men's reports imply that the battered women of court-referred batterers rely on themselves to fend off their partner's abuse or cope with it. In fact, the women tended to use personal strategies, such as threatening divorce or staying at a friend's or relative's house, rather than more formal help-seeking sources.
These battered women, furthermore, appear more likely to use the criminal justice system to deal with the abuse, rather than social services including battered women's programs. Their helpseeking appears to move directly to the most intensive help source (the criminal justice system), instead of progressing through various levels of help sources (e.g., personal strategies, to informal sources, to formal help sources, to criminal justice interventions). The women partners of men in batterer programs are not likely to have been involved in shelters--a finding that is consistent across our research sites. The low percentages of women contacting shelters or counseling services may reflect the men not being as aware of the women seeking shelter or counseling as they are of them contacting the police. On the other hand, some women may simply find calling 911 more convenient, or may not consider the local women's shelter as readily accessible (e.g., some shelters do not accept male teenage children; crisis counselors are sometimes overloaded).
Race:The research sites, while remarkably similar in age distribution, substantially differ in racial composition and corresponding in socio-economic status (see Table 1). The program differences in race across the sites appear to reflect, at least in part, respective differences in regional urban populations. Over 2/3 (68%) of the participants at Site 3 are men of color, as opposed to over one third (38%) of Site 2 being of composed of men of color (X2=45.63[3]; p=.001). While the men of color at Site 1 are nearly all African American (47% of the men in Site 1 are African American), Site 3 has at least a third of the men (34%) identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino (X2=166.30[9]; p=.001).
The racial composition of the batterer programs reflects the proportions of their respective city populations, except for Site 1. This site has over 20% more African Americans than the rate for the city itself. This may reflect: 1) the court jurisdiction being confined largely to inner city neighborhoods at Site 1, 2) African American women being the most likely to call police in response to domestic violence and Latino women the least likely, according to recent research on police utilization ( Hutchison, Hischel, & Pesackis, 1994), and 3) the legal system's discrimination against African American males in arrests, convictions, and sentencing.
Other Characteristics:Site 1 appears to have more lower-income, less educated, under employed men, and unmarried men than the other sites, and Site 2 tends to have more men of higher socio-economic status. More specifically, Site 1 has fewer men with some college education as compared to Site 2 having almost twice as men with college education (27% versus 45%; X2=24.49[6]; p=.001). Similarly Site 1 has nearly twice the unemployed or part-time men (58%) as the other three sites (30% versus 30% versus 27%; X2=57.03[3]; p=.001), and has the vast majority of men (78%) identifying themselves as blue collar workers as opposed to white collar along with Site 3 (72%) (X2=37.66[3]; p=.001). These differences may reflect the socio-economic situations of the respective sites, with Site 1 having the least employment opportunities among the sites.
The men at Site 1 were also more likely not to be married to they women they had abused (70% versus approximately 50% across the other sites; X2=38.26[3]; p=.001), even though there was no significant difference in the proportions not currently living with their partners or not having children living with them. The marital status of the men at the various sites appears to reflect marital tendency among the racial groups. Lower-income African American men were the least likely to be married, and Latino men were the most likely to be married, reflecting in part their respective social circumstances and cultures ( Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1991).
Summary:Site 1 is distinguished by more African American men and men with less education and less employment opportunity, and Site 2 tends to have more white men and men with higher education and employment status. (Race does not of itself significantly predict the educational and employment levels of the respective sites.) The other two sites are more comparable in their racial composition, educational levels, and employment status. These differences most likely reflect regional differences, but may also be influenced by the court systems that the respective programs serve.
MCMI Results:The portion of men with mental disorders was relatively similar across the sites overall, according to the MCMI (see Table 5). Although not statistically significant, the men at Site 4 were 10% more likely to score positive for a major disorder (Axis I) (60% versus 54%, 50%, 51%; X2=4.51(3); p=.211) and for personality disorders (Axis II) (95% versus 89%, 89%, 86%; X2=10.41(3); .015), but this relationship is not statistically significant. Men at Site 1 were also more likely to score positive on a combination of personality disorders (less than 7; 16%, versus 9%, 8%, 6%; X2=31.65(6); p=.001). These tendencies reflect significant scoring differences in a few areas. Site 4 was almost twice as likely to have men scoring positive for the presence of passive aggressive tendencies than Sites 3 and 4 (33% versus 19%, 19%; X2=15.98(3); p=.001); and the men at Site 4 were also significantly more likely than the other sites to have men appearing to have a paranoid personality pathology (15% versus 12%, 6%, 9%,15%; X2=11.49(3); p=11.49; p=.009) and an anxiety disorder (49% versus 33%,36%, 40%; X2=11.92; p=.008).
Self-report:Despite the differences in demographic characteristics, the differences in the men's report about parental problem behavior and their recent psychological problems did not vary significantly across the sites (see the bottom of Table 1 and top of Table 2). However, nearly twice as many men at Site 2 had received some mental health treatment than at the other sites (36% versus 16%, 17%, 20%; X2=31.12[3]; p=.001). Specifically, the men in Site 2 were more likely to have received medication (13% versus 4%, 9%, 7%; X2=12.65[3]; p=.005) or mental health counseling than men at the other three sites (25% versus 11%, 15%, 15%; X2=16.54[3]; p=.001). This treatment difference may reflect the fact that the men at Site 2 are more likely to be of higher income and economic status and, therefore, more able to seek and obtain these kind of services. Also, the number of therapists and mental health programming in the city of Site 2 is substantially greater than at the other sites.
Summary:While the prevalence of mental disorders and reported psychological problems was similar across the sites, Site 4 appeared to have a greater portion of severe disorders. This difference corresponds with the greater likelihood of men at Site 4 to report recent verbal abuse and assaults. The men at Site 4 were also more likely to score high on the disclosure scale of the MCMI (BR score is less than 75, 23% versus 14%, 11%, 15%; X2=12.34(3); p=.006) suggesting greater openness in acknowledging symptoms. The Site 4 difference may, therefore, in part be the result of the disclosure especially concerning anxiety and tension over the men's situation with the courts. Men with high disclosure (BR score is bigger than 75) were over twice as likely to score positive on the anxiety disorder subscale at Site 4 (83% versus 39%; X2= 29.11[1]; p=.001) and in general (85% versus 31%; X2= 133.42[1] p=.001). These differences in disclosure may be attributed to minor differences in data collection procedures. The research materials were administered at Site 4 in a more personable way than at the other sites. The MCMI was read aloud by the research assistant rather than through an audio tape, and was administered to smaller groups, after the men had introduced themselves and briefly discussed their relationship.
MAST Results:The MAST scores were equivalent at all four sites, suggesting the proportion of alcoholics was similar across the sites, as is the proportion of men with mental disorders (see Table 6). The alcohol screening, however, identifies men likely to have alcoholic tendencies, but does not necessarily indicate the men with the most severe drinking problems. Some MAST items suggest behavioral differences among sites that may be reflected in variations of the men's report about their drinking. For instance, the men at Site 1 were twice as likely to report being involved in alcohol-related fights than the men at Site 3 (39% versus 20 %; X2=20.92[3]; p=.001). The men at Site 2, on the other hand, were the most likely to have been involved in drunk driving (33% versus 22%, 18%, 25%; X2=20.92[3]; p=.002), but they are also more likely to have cars given their higher economic status and geographical dispersion of their city.
Self-Reports:The sites did significantly differ in the proportion of men reporting heavy drinking and drunkenness (see Table 2). Site 1 had the highest levels of drinking. This may in part reflect the lower socio-economic status of the men at this site, since an association exists between the demographics and reported drinking in the sample of batterers as a whole. Over half of the men (53%) at Site 1 reported drinking at least weekly as opposed to one-third (34%) at Site 2, a quarter of the men (25%) at Site 3, and 41% of the men at Site 4 (X2=37.78[3]; p=.001). Similarly, nearly three-fourths of the men (71%) at Site 1 reported drunkenness at least twice every three months as opposed to about half of the men at the other sites (X2=27.66[3]; p=.001). The men at Site 1 and Site 2 were also more likely to report smoking marijuana in the last year (29% and 24 % versus 12% and 17%; X2=23.62[3]; p=.001) or using other drugs (14% and 12% versus 6% and 7%; X2=12.95[3]; p=.005) than the men at the other two sites. Furthermore, the men at Site 1 were significantly more likely to report their partner being drunk (62% versus 48%, 37%, 44%; X2=28.65[3]; p=.001).
The proportion of men receiving previous alcohol or drug treatment did not, however, vary across the sites, but the proportion receiving inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation was significantly higher at Site 2 (24%) than at, especially, Site 3 (9%) and the other two sites (18% and 14%) (X2=20.43[3]; p=.001). The higher level of drug use and the available treatment options in the city where Site 2 is located may contribute to the higher proportion of men receiving alcohol or drug treatment at Site 2.
Summary:The proportions of men reporting parental problems, mental health symptoms, and alcohol and drug abuse were amazingly similar across sites despite the demographic differences. However, men at Site 1 were more likely to report heavy alcohol and drug use, even though the portion of men screened as "alcoholic" on the MAST test was similar across sites. The heavier drinking and drug use at Site 1 appears to be influenced in part by the greater portion of men with lower socio-economic status at that site.
A greater percentage of men at Site 4 reported abusive behaviors in terms of recent verbal abuse and assaults (see Table 3). Yet men at Site 2 were especially more likely to report being assaultive in the past. The reporting levels of controlling behaviors, serious threats, and severe assaults are so low that it is difficult to detect more specific differences for abuse tactics. The apparent overall differences do not appear to be explained by background characteristics and may be related to system or testing differences.
Control & Threats:The percentage of men acknowledging various forms of controlling behavior in the past three months did not vary significantly across the sites, except that men at Site 4 (58%) were more likely, especially than men at Site 2 (36%), to have reported verbal abuse in the form of swearing, screaming, or insulting (X2=25.20[3]; p=.001). Men at Site 4 (23%) were also more likely to report threatening to throw something than the men at Site 1 (12%) and Site 2 (14%) (X2=10.21[3]; p=.002). In fact a greater portion of men at Site 4 reported one of six kinds of threats than at other sites (44% versus 24%, 23%, 27%; X2=26.28[3]; p=.001).
Assaults:The men's reports of assault, although admittedly low overall, were greatest at one site for the past three months, but higher at other sites for ever in the past. Site 4 had the highest percentage of men (64%) admitting to an assault in the past three months -- over twice the percentage of Site 2 (27%) -- and a greater percentage of men reporting severe assault (22%) than Site 2 (10%). These differences appear even though the delay between court appearance and program intake is similar at the two sites, and education level, employment status, and marital status are similar at the these sites. However, a greater percentage of men at Site 2 (60%) and Site 1 (74%) report assaults ever in the past than at the other sites (55% and 46%) (X2=38.05[3]; p=.001). The same pattern appears for severe violence reported in the past. The amount of men reporting injuring their partners is similar across the sites, however.
Summary:More recent abuse was reported at especially Site 4, and more abuse in the past was reported at Site 2. There are several possible reasons for this. The men at Site 4 may have committed more serious violence to get caught and referred to batterer programs. The laws and court at Site 2 may facilitate the apprehension and referral of less severe events, even though the abuse may have been going on longer and more severely in the past. Also, the questionnaire time frames for assault may have been explained differently at the sites, or the men may have been prompted more at Site 4 to disclose their most recent violence, as the higher scores on the disclosure subscale of the MCMI may suggest. (Our monitoring of the data collection did not, however, reveal these latter sorts of differences.)
Variations in the men's reports of their partner's physical response reflected their reports of assaultive behavior, but the help-seeking of the partners was similar across sites regardless of the variation in demographics and reported abuse (see Table 4). The men at Site 4 (54%) were again twice as likely to report their partner assaulting them during the past three months as those at Site 2 (27%) (X2=32.39[3]; p=.001). However, men at Site 2 (60%), as compared especially to Site 4 (44%), were more likely to report their partners assaulting them ever in the past (X2=13.33[3]; p=.004).
There is no significant differences among the sites in terms of the prior help-seeking of the battered women, however. They have similar levels of shelter contact and police and court assistance as well. These findings are striking given the differences in demographic characteristics at the sites and different levels of reported recent versus past abuse. The court systems, resources, and available services may be very similar across the sites accounting for a constant level of help, or the woman may be responding to what amounts to similar levels of abuse over time. An additional possibility is that the limited help available to battered women and the tendency of batterers to blame and restrict battered women may contribute to the relatively low level of social service help (shelter and counseling) and the women's tendency to revert to the police in desperation.
Generalizations:Our sample of batterers from four different cities confirms prevailing stereotypes of batterers in court-referred batterer programs. They tend to be men of color in their early thirties and of lower socio-economic status. Nearly half of our sample was not married and a half was not living with their partners. Over a third of the men acknowledged their troubled family backgrounds (violence and/or substance abuse) and at least a third admitted to their own heavy alcohol use. In fact, over half of the batterers may have alcoholic tendencies, according to a widely used alcohol screening test (MAST). Similarly, a substantial portion appear to have serious drinking problems, yet nearly a third report not drinking at all during the last year. Only a quarter report using other drugs in the previous year. Most of the men (68%) appear to have other problem behaviors beyond domestic violence in the form of either fights, drunk driving, or previous arrests.
Psychological Problems:A personality test (MCMI-III) suggests that over a quarter of the men may be diagnosed as having a severe personality disorder (shizotypal, borderline, or paranoid) or major mental disorder (excluding anxiety disorder and addiction). The vast majority score positive on at least one personality disorder subscale, but typifying or predominant profiles are evident. In terms of self-reported mental and emotional problems, the men do not readily appear seriously disturbed or deviant as a group. A third or so report recent emotional problems (angry outbursts, serious anxiety, mood swings) that may be associated with their abuse, but very few report symptoms associated with major mental disorders other than depression. As in previous studies, nearly a fifth of the men report being seriously depressed in the recent past. Approximately a third have received either previous alcohol and drug or mental health treatment of some kind.
Abuse:As court-referred cases, nearly all the men in our sample were arrested for a recent domestic assault. However, less than half admitted to committing an assault in the previous three months, and less than a fifth of the sample acknowledged severe abuse. Over half of the men admitted to at least bruising their partners sometime in the past, and a quarter admitted to their partners seeking medical attention because of their injuries. Interestingly, the men portray their partners as being as assaultive as they were, but few of the men (5%) sought medical attention for any injuries. These reports, of course, ignore the dynamics of the apparent conflicts and do not account for the women's account of the incidents. According to the men, the women tended to rely on the criminal justice system for assistance (40% sought a protection order, legal assistance, criminal charges or police response in the past) rather than social services, including battered women's shelters (14%).
Dichotomies:While there is some association between educational indicators and other case characteristics, the socio-economic status of the men does not significantly account for the behavior of the men. The batterers in fact might be more appropriately characterized as a diverse group of men marked by several dichotomies that have implications for intervention. While nearly a quarter of the men did not have a high school education and may have reading problems, another third have some college education. While as much as a third was under-employed, a fifth are professionals, administrators, or managers. Half were married, half not; half were living with their partner, and half not.
The men at the four research sites differed in demographics, yet were relatively similar in terms of alcohol and behavioral indicators. The sites significantly differed in their racial composition, largely as a result of their regional populations. Site 1 had a greater percentage of men from lower socio-economic status. The percentage of men screened as "alcoholic" (on the MAST) and having severe mental disorders was equivalent across all four sites. One site (Site 4) had a greater proportion of men reporting recent abuse than the other sites, but a lower amount reporting abuse in the past. Interestingly, the help seeking efforts of the women, both in terms of human service contact and criminal justice assistance, did not significantly vary across the sites.
Some areas where the sites differed are as follows. A higher portion of men at Site 1 reported drunkenness, alcohol-related fights, and use of other drugs. The lower socio-economic status of the men at this site (reflecting in part the greater percentage of court, as opposed to "voluntary", referrals) appears to account for some of this behavioral difference. Site 4, with the greater percentage reporting recent abuse, also had a slightly higher portion of men with anxiety and paranoid disorders, according to the MCMI. These differences may, in part, reflect a more personable administration of the research materials at Site 4, which might have facilitated more self-disclosure. Even though Site 2 had the smallest portion of serious disorders, it had a substantially higher portion of men who had sought treatment. The high number of therapists in the region of Site 2, and higher socio-economic status of the men there, may account for the high rate of previous treatment.
Compounding Problems:The characteristics of the batterers in our sample illustrate the additional problems which may, in fact, affect men's response to programs as well as compound their abuse. The low socio-economic status, abusive and alcoholic families of origin, mental health and alcohol problems, and previous arrests may all warrant special attention. Not surprisingly, previous research suggests these sorts of problems increase the likelihood of program dropout ( Grusznski, Carrillo, 1988; Hamberger & Hastings, 1989). The field is currently weighing at least two sets of options in this regard. Does case management, additional programming, or referral improve the outcomes for problematic cases? Or, does focusing on abusive behavior significantly interrupt and reduce reoffense regardless of the men's characteristics, much as the proponents of managed care and brief therapy might suggest.
Group Dichotomies:A second issue implied in our findings is that apparent dichotomies among the batterers warrant revisions for curriculum-based batterer programs. For instance, do men with such different levels of education (and reading levels) need different kinds of materials and instruction? Do men of different racial backgrounds need separate groups or culturally-sensitive curriculum? Do men living on their own need a different focus than men who are living with their partners? On the other hand, the behavioral commonalties of the men may transcend their demographic differences. The similarities in the nature of their abuse, their minimization and/or justifications about abuse, their experience with the legal system, and difficulty with their relationships, all offer some unifying issues and themes to address in batterer programs.
Screening Extremes:One could also argue that, while a portion of the men do have complicating problems, the majority of the men appear relatively "normal." Only a small percentage could be considered psychopathic or distinctly deviant. The diversity of the men, in fact, is fairly similar to that in many public substance abuse programs which focus on the men's substance abuse regardless of background. The mission of batterer programs may, therefore, be to deal as effectively as possible with the fairly "normal" majority, refer others screened as having severe mental or alcohol problems to additional services, and count on the courts to address the portion who drop out or do not comply. Our findings suggest that formalized testing or screening instruments, instead of self-reported problems, may be necessary to identify such cases.
Batterer Types:Our preliminary summary of batterer characteristics implies, as previous research suggests ( Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), groupings of different "types" of batterers. Educational levels, for instance, appear to be associated with drinking and abuse, as are parental problems. However, the initial efforts to identify prominent types amidst the diversity and dichotomies of batterers were unsuccessful. Cross-tabulations among demographic, family of origin, and behavioral indicators were either not significant or account for little variance. Moreover, associations that did emerge may not be pronounced enough to be clinically significant--that is, make a difference to program staff. The question remains whether a distinct typology of characteristics can be established with a more sophisticated multivariate analysis using ordinal variables as opposed to our collapsed response categories. One of the subsequent tasks, therefore, is to systematically explore the possibility of types and to determine if those types predict outcomes.
The personality problems of batterers have received increased attention in response to the interest in typologies and proposals to differentiate treatment. A preliminary look at the MCMI results with our sample suggests a diversified picture that warrants further examination. The MCMI is designed for a case-by-case interpretation based on the composite of elevated scores. The profiles with clinical samples are often complex and difficult to interpret without additional information. As with previous MCMI research ( Hamberger & Hastings, 1991), our combination of scores could be further analyzed using factor analysis and factor scores. We might also review the individual profiles of "unsuccessful" cases to determine if some disorders are predominant among men who drop out or reoffend. Both these analyses need to be controlled with socio-economic status, alcohol and drug use, and additional interventions to better assess the context of the outcomes. Profiles may be an extension of an individuals social circumstances, a manifestation of his abusive tendencies, merely consequential to a man's violence, or a primary factor in a man's violence and abuse.
Reporting Discrepancies:It is of course important to emphasize that the characteristics summarized above are based on the reports of batterers themselves. This population has been shown to especially minimize their reports of abuse at program intake ( Edleson & Brygger, 1986). Batterers' reports on other behaviors may be distorted or incorrect, as well. A subsequent analysis drawing on reports from the men's partners will identity the nature and extent of discrepancies between the batterers and their female partners. Do men who underreport violence, distort other aspects of their behavior, such as drinking? Do they misrepresent themselves consistently or selectively? Are there certain types of men that under report or distort their behavior? We will examine not only the discrepancies at intake, but also during the follow-up period of the multi-site evaluation. Do the discrepancies between men's and women's reports decrease over time and after intervention, as some previous research suggests ( Edleson & Brygger, 1986)? Finally, we will consider the validity of the self-reports in general compared to police and hospital records, and the intake testing (MAST and MCMI).
Benchmark Comparisons:Our sample of four sites, using the same measures, offers a benchmark to assess changes in batterer characteristics over time and across other cities and regions. The characteristics of our sample address questions about how much we can generalize from previous outcome studies and practice debates. The court-ordered batterers in our sample are, for instance, much more diverse racially than the samples used in notable previous outcome studies conducted in the Midwest (Minneapolis [ Edleson & Syers, 1991; Edleson, & Grusznski, 1989]; Indianapolis [ Roberts, 1987], and Kenosha, Wisconsin [ Hamberger & Hastings, 1988]), and Canada (Vancouver [ Dutton, 1986]). A greater percentage of men in our sample are also not married, more likely to be employed, and a few years older on average than men in some other research studies, but are comparable to others in terms of educational level, parental problems, and previous treatment even though the other studies occurred as many as 8 years ago ( Roberts, 1987).
Moreover, the demographics (except for race which was not indicated) and prior arrests were nearly identical to a 5-year-old experimental study of batterer counseling versus probation in Baltimore county ( Harrell, 1991). We must infer from the limited data on couples counseling with batterers and their partners that our sample of predominately court-referred batterers is dramatically different in characteristics and behavior ( Brown & O'Leary, 1995). The samples from couples counseling appear to be predominately white, from higher socio-economic status, and with substantially less alcoholism, fewer mental disorders, and fewer prior arrests. Except for couples counseling, the men in court-referred batterer programs appear surprising similar across sites and over recent years, even with differences in program structure, court systems, police practices, and victim services.
Four batterer intervention systems are being evaluated using a naturalistic, comparative research design, as opposed to a clinical trial or experimental design. The four research sites were selected to represent a continuum of intensive and extensive intervention. The sites include 1) a pre-trial, 3-month, didactic program with court liaisons (Pittsburgh), 2) a post-conviction, 3-month, process program with women's services (Dallas), 3) a post-conviction, 5-month, didactic program with legal advocacy (Houston), and 4) a post-conviction, 9-month, process program with complementary services (including substance abuse treatment, individual mental health counseling, and women?s services coordinators) (Denver). A background questionnaire, an alcohol test (MAST), and a personality test (MCMI) were administered to 210 men at each of the four sites for a total sample of 840. Their partners were also interviewed by phone at the time of intake.
The men and their battered partners (and 170 identified new partners) were interviewed by phone every 3-months for 15 months. Police arrest reports, program records and participation reports, rearrest records during follow-up, and women's medical records are also being reviewed and analyzed to help verify self-reports. Site-visits, which included staff interviews and observations of group sessions, were also conducted.
The preliminary findings listed below are based on completion of the 12-month follow-up. A response rate of 77% of the women was achieved over the 12-month period. The respondent sample is slightly biased toward program completers and Anglo subjects. The outcome findings are based on these women's reports.
Our initial hypothesis reflected a situational model of change: those cases with the least mental and substance use problems, attending the most counseling sessions, and receiving additional services would have the lowest reassault rates and better quality of life for the women. The preliminary findings suggest, however, that all the programs are associated with a short-term cessation of assault and improvements overall in the women's quality of life, irrespective of counseling duration and additional services. Unfortunately, the complexity of the respective intervention systems and the confounding of a quasi-control group (program dropouts) makes it difficult to determine the specific contribution of the program counseling to the outcome.
These preliminary findings remain tentative. The outcomes need to be controlled for a number of contingencies, the largely self-report data need to be verified with documentation, and the descriptive statistics are to be subjected to multivariate analyses. The preliminary data also need to be weighed against qualitative information and interviewee narratives, and more elaborate case studies, drawing on a variety sources, need to be constructed.
As part of the design implementation, the principal investigator conducted two visits to each site during the subject recruitment period. He attended staff meetings, conducted staff interviews, visited related agencies, reviewed program documentation and budgets, and observed group sessions. An inventory of program organization, structure, and approach was completed based on these sources of information (see "Program Structure Survey" in the Appendix). The objective of the inventory was to substantiate that the programs demonstrated the selection criteria, to identify any variations in program implementation over the course of the subject recruitment, and to describe any additional factors or issues that might influence program outcome. A major research finding emerged from this procedure: The programs varied much more than anticipated and more than our selection criteria specified (see Table 3). Our initial continuum of program length and extent of services was confounded by court linkages, responses to non-compliance, and community context. Batterer systems appear essentially unique to their community environments, social histories, organizational structures, available staffing, and available services. Replicating model programs may, therefore, be more complicated than some training approaches might suggest. Moreover, several factors emerged that help to further qualify and interpret program outcomes. These are summarized below:
The demographics of the batterers vary across the four sites and reflect the compositions of their respective communities. However, within each program there are dichotomies in social circumstances (race, education, living with the partner, etc.) that are often not specifically addressed in program curriculum. For instance, a quarter of the men had not completed high school and may have difficulty reading or grasping some vocabulary, while 1/3 of the men had attended college. Surprisingly, the four programs had equivalent portions of men who had parental abuse while growing up, alcoholic tendencies, psychological problems, prior arrests, committed "severe" women battering. Despite the differences in court referral procedures and demographics, the distribution of these case characteristics was similar across the four sites.
Specific details about the demographics and characteristics of the batterers are as follows:
A substantial portion of the initial partners suffered severe assaults and injury prior to the batterers' program intake. Over half had previously contacted the criminal justice system in response to abuse, but only about a quarter had received any counseling for domestic violence and less than 10% had previously visited a battered women's shelter. The women's perceptions of their batterers were overly optimistic, despite the severe abuse and information received from batterer programs. The partners of court-mandated batterers differ from battered women in shelters in terms of demographics, victimization and help-seeking, and appear to warrant special attention and research. The findings raise issues for what additionally might be done to better serve battered women of court-ordered batterers. The major findings about the women are summarized below:
The "model" batterer programs appear to contribute to the cessation of assault at least in the short-term. The majority of women indicate their "quality of life" has improved and that they feel "very safe." A portion of batterers, however, appear to be resistant and unresponsive to intervention. They reassault soon after program intake, repeatedly reassault, and/or cause significant distress and fear in their partners. These findings lend support to the approach and linkages represented by the programs in our study, and to the emerging efforts to establish more intensive intervention for resistant batterers. However, we did not find the longer and more extensive programs to have lower reassault rates. The equivalent reassault rates over the four programs may be in part the result of other program features, court procedures, and community factors, discussed above, that offset the expected benefits of more comprehensive programs. The major findings about the program outcome are as follows:
Research Design
Gondolf, E. (1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,3-98.
Gondolf, E. (in press). Expanding batterer program evaluations. In G. K. Kaufman & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of darkness: Contemporary research perspectives on family violence.Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Gondolf, E., Yllo, K., & Campbell, J. (in press). Collaboration between researchers and advocates. In G. K. Kaufman & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of darkness: Contemporary research perspectives on family violence.Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Heckert, A. & Gondolf, E. (1997). Agreement of Assault Among Batterer Program Participants and Their Partners.Paper presented at the 5th International Family Violence Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, June 29-July 2.
Batterer Characteristics
Gondolf, E. (1996). Characteristics of batterers in a multi-site evaluation of batterer intervention systems.Report submitted to Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Gondolf, E. (under review). Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies.Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Gondolf, E. (under review). MCMI results for Batterer Program Participants in Four Cities: Less "pathological" than expected. Journal of Personality Disorders.
Gondolf, E. (under review). Batterer types based on the MCMI: A less than promising picture. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Victim Characteristics
Gondolf, E. (under review). Victims of court-mandated batterers: A different kind of battered woman? Violence Against Women.
McFarlane, J., & Gondolf, E. (under review). Characteristics of abuse and resource use: A comparison of partners of court-mandated batterers and pregnant abused women (Brief Report). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Coben, J., Forjuoh, S., & Gondolf, E. (under review). Injuries and health care use by women with partners in batterer intervention programs. Academic Emergency Medicine.
Forjuoh, S., Coben, J., & Gondolf, E. (under review). Risk factors for injury in battered women: A case-control analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association.
Program Outcomes
Daley, J. (1996). Predicting compliance among men who batter: The contributions of demographics, violence-related factors, and psychopathology.Dissertation submitted to Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Gondolf, E. (under review). Patterns of reassault in batterer programs: Who, what, when, and why. Violence and Victims.
Gondolf, E. (under review). A comparison of reassault rates in four batterer programs: Do court referral, program length and services matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Gondolf, E. (under review). The failure to predict reassault from batterer program intake. Journal of Family Violence.
Snow, A. & Gondolf, E. (1997). Post-program predictors of Re-assault for Batterer Program Participants.Paper presented at the 5th International Family Violence Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, June 29-July 2.
There are several other papers with more complex analyses in progress. These should be completed by the end of the summer 1997.
Investigators
Analysts
Program Directors