search | site index | faq | about us | what's new

The Impact of Mandatory Court Review on Batterer Program Compliance: An evaluation of the Pittsburgh Municipal Courts and Domestic Abuse Counseling Center (DACC)

Edward W. Gondolf
Assoc. Director of Research
Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1098 Oakland Ave., Indiana, PA 15705, PHONE: 412-357-4749/FAX: 412-357-3944

Publication Date: April, 1998

Table of Contents

• Cover Letter
• Executive Summary
  • Court Review
  • Research Design
  • Major Findings
  • Implications
• Tables
  • Explanation to Files

Cover Letter

April 15, 1998
TO: Program Directors and Interested Parties
FR: Edward Gondolf, MAATI
RE: The impact of mandatory court review on batterer program compliance (an evaluation of preliminary court procedures funded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency)

I am sending enclosed a summary of an evaluation of the court review process for men referred to batterer counseling from the Domestic Violence Court in Pittsburgh. The referral is made at a pre-trail (or preliminary court) hearing as a condition of a deferred (or postponed) adjudication. The "court review" requires evidence of compliance to batterer counseling at 30-days after the initial court hearing. If this evidence is not presented to the court at that time (or if evidence of non-compliance is received by the court prior to the 30-day review date), a warrant for arrest is issued immediately.

The research sought to identify the impact and utility of court review on compliance to batterer counseling and ultimately on recidivism. Our findings demonstrate that court review dramatically increases compliance, and the court review and batterer counseling lowers recidivism. The findings further suggest the importance of a quick and certain response to non-compliance which is often lost in post-adjudication referrals monitored by probation offices. They also help account for findings in our CDC-funded batterer program evaluation in which the short (3-months duration) batterer program in Pittsburgh had reassault rates comparable to post-adjudication programs with longer duration and more services.

A tangential finding may influence the relevance of court review. We found a substantial decrease in court referrals from 1995 to 1997 that appears to be related to fewer arrests and a lower percentage of referrals. These matters may warrant policy attention in themselves. The docket information and record keeping, moreover, needs to be computerized for ready access and interpretation. Currently, there is no simple way to determine the reappearances, final dispositions, gender of the case, or relationship to the victim. All of this information would be useful in developing court procedures and program services. Copies of the full 60-page report are available from the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute (Phone: 724-357-4405) at $7 a copy.

Return to top of the page

Executive Summary

Court Review

The criminal justice system is increasingly using batterer counseling programs for men arrested on domestic violence charges. One of the fundamental concerns is the lower compliance of court referral to these programs. Over a third of the men referred to programs do not report to them, and nearly half of those men who enter a program do not complete it. In 1995, a mandatory court review 30-days after program referral was established in the Pittsburgh Domestic Violence Court to address the problem of non-compliance. The Domestic Violence Court refers 20-30% of the arrested men to the Domestic Abuse Counseling Center for 12 weekly group sessions following a program intake and orientation. (The required number of sessions was extended to 16 in late 1996.) The referral is generally made as a stipulation of bond in the preliminary court hearing. A program court liaison notifies the court if a referred man does not appear for his scheduled intake and a warrant for his arrest is issued. A referred man must also reappear in court in 30 days to verify his program participation and again in another 60 days to verify program completion. The court currently waives the man's appearance if his program attendance has been documented.

Research Design

A study was conducted of the impact of the court review on compliance to program intake and program completion. A naturalistic experiment compared the non-compliance (i.e., "no-shows" and "dropouts") prior to the implementation of the 30-day court review and after its implementation in January 1995. Interviews were conducted with men appearing for a preliminary hearing in 1994, 1995, and 1997 and found the demographics and behavioral characteristics sufficiently comparable for comparison (n=300). The characteristics of the batterer program enrollees were also assessed for these years using questionnaires administered at program intake (n=1000). The men enrolling in the program have characteristics similar to the court cases in general. Between 40%-50% of the two groups were previously arrested. Court dockets, program rosters, and arrest records were coded and analyzed to determine the extent of program referrals, non-compliance, and re-arrest. Courtroom observations were also conducted to help identify additional factors that might be influencing compliance.

Major Findings

The portion of court referrals who did not complete the batterer program dramatically decreased from one-half (52%) to one-third (35%). Conversely, over two-thirds of the program referrals completed the 16 sessions required in 1997. This compliance was the result of the "no-show" rate being reduced from 36% in 1994 to 6% in 1997 with a 30-day court review, and the "dropout" rate for program intakes remaining fairly constant over this period (22%-31%). The relevance of court review was limited however by a sharp decline in program referrals. In 1995, the number of program referrals peaked at 1052; but in 1997, it had fallen to 392. The decrease in program referrals was the result of fewer domestic violence arrests and a lower rate of referral from the available court cases (31% in 1995 and 20% in 1997). The fewer arrests appear related to changes in police practices, and the lower referral rate reflect a change in the practices of two of the five magistrates.

Program completers were half as likely to be re-arrested for assault (i.e., domestic violence or other assault) as those not referred to the programs (16% vs. 37%;n=400). The re-arrest rate for domestic violence was only 8% for the program completers compared to 14% for the non-referred court cases. The non-referred cases are primarily those dismissed, withdrawn, or fined.

Implications

The court review process for batterer program referrals appears to substantially reduce non-compliance. In fact, it nearly eliminated the problem of "no-shows" in the Pittsburgh Domestic Violence Court. There appears to be a "program effect" in the form of reduced re-arrests for program completers. However, decreases in the number of arrests and the referral rate have lowered program referrals by one-half from 1995 to 1997.

The findings of this study demonstrate that court review coupled with batterer counseling contributes to a substantial reduction in re-arrests. Court referral at preliminary hearings appears as a viable option to post-adjudication referral subject to long delays and high withdrawals and dismissals. The findings of this study may not be directly applicable to all municipal court systems. They do, however, demonstrate the utility of a quick and certain response to non-compliance regardless of the court.

February 20, 1998

Return to top of the page

Tables

Explanation to Files

All DOC files are in WORD 97
The XLS file is EXCEL 97

The Charts for the Exec. Summary are in Excel format. I have also included a file of TABLES that may be used as a substitute for the Excel charts if they cannot be easily loaded on the WEB page. The Executive Summary can stand alone if the tables and charts are too difficult to load.

For questions or assistance contact:
Edward W. Gondolf, EdD, MPH
Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute
1098 Oakland Ave.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, PA 15705
PH: 412-357-4749; FX: 412-357-3944
E-mail: EGondolf@Grove.IUP.edu

Thanks very much for your assistance and support.

Return to top of the page