Outcomes and Recidivism in Mandated Batterer Intervention Before and After Introducing a Specialized Domestic Violence Court

Abstract

Both specialized domestic violence (DV) courts and batterer intervention programs were developed to more adequately address intimate partner abuse and recidivism; however, little research has studied them concurrently. The current research examined clinical outcomes and police-reported recidivism in 382 men mandated to attend the Calgary Counselling Centre’s Responsible Choices for Men’s (RCM) groups between 1998 and 2009, before and after a specialized DV court was established in 2001. The study examines associations between categorical demographic and criminal justice variables, most of which were not correlated with post-group recidivism. Before the specialized court was implemented, 45 RCM members reported significantly more clinical issues at pretest than the 282 RCM members after court implementation (all scores adjusted by social desirability), although the effect sizes were negligible. Regarding group outcomes, depression, anxiety, and self-esteem (adjusted for social desirability) significantly improved on average for all RCM members irrespective of court implementation. Before the specialized DV court was developed, recidivism occurred after RCM program completion for a large proportion of men (41.2%), compared with only 8.2% after court implementation, a significant difference with a moderate effect size. The recidivism results are interpreted in the context of the significant justice and community collaborations entailed in creating the specialized DV court.

Keywords

intimate partner violence batterer intervention programs specialized domestic violence courts recidivism outcome evaluation violence against women

Specialized domestic violence (DV) courts are a relatively recent innovation in the criminal justice system, aiming to address intimate partner violence (IPV) more effectively by holding offenders more accountable in the hope of improving victim’s safety. The two principles underlying most specialized DV courts are early intervention for low risk offenders and vigorous prosecution for serious repeat offenders (Tutty & Koshan, 2013). As court-mandated batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are a key intervention of the justice system, it is critical to determine clinical outcomes and recidivism rates after court-mandated offenders participate in such programs (Gondolf, 2002).

This article reports on group outcomes and police-reported recidivism over a 10-year period for 382 men mandated to attend a BIP, comparing the characteristics on demographic and standardized measures for those who recidivated compared with those who did not, both before and after a new specialized DV court was introduced. With a meta-analysis on court-mandated batterer treatment reporting mixed results (Feder & Wilson, 2005), this focus is arguably important, especially given Hamby, McDonald, and Grych’s (2014) review of DV research in the previous 5 years that concluded that research on batterer intervention has been under-represented.

Specialized DV Courts

The criminal justice system intervenes in a substantial proportion of cases of IPV in Canada and the United States (Brennan & Dauvergne, 2011; Tsai, 2000). To hold these often-serial offenders more accountable, specialized DV courts have been developed across the world. The term specialized court entails more than the court system. Most involve community treatment agencies coordinating with the efforts of specialized police units, Crown prosecutors, and probation officers (Babcock & Steiner, 1999; Shepard, 1992; Tolman & Weisz, 1995). Specialized courts are a form of problem-solving court (Dorf & Fagen, 2003) with two primary features: early intervention for low risk offenders and vigorous prosecution for serious repeat offenders. Early intervention allows accused persons who admit responsibility to be ordered into batterer treatment soon after the offense. In contrast, vigorous prosecution involves specialized police units and the courts collaborating to ensure “the strongest prosecution effort possible” for repeat or serious offenders (Tutty & Koshan, 2013).

Numerous differences can be found in the focus and mandates of specialized DV courts. Some DV courts include special programs to address victims’ safety; others include judicial monitoring as a core feature (Gondolf, 2002; Labriola, Bradley, O’Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, 2010). In some jurisdictions, the courts deal exclusively with IPV while other jurisdictions including the court, featured in the current article, deal with all family violence matters, including child abuse and elder abuse in addition to IPV (Tutty & Koshan, 2013). Evaluations of specialized courts in both Canada (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Tutty & Koshan, 2013; Ursel & Hagyard, 2008) and the United States (Gover, Brank, & MacDonald, 2007; Gover, MacDonald, & Alpert, 2003; Maytal, 2008) generally suggest that they are meeting their goals, including lower recidivism rates.

BIPs

BIPs, almost exclusively offered in a group format, were first developed in the late 1970s based on concerns expressed by advocates for abused women (Feder & Wilson, 2005; Gondolf, 2002). Initially slow to evolve due to voluntary attendance and poor retention rates, today, BIPs are a key component of the criminal justice system’s response to DV (Gondolf, 2002).

Although BIP programs vary in their clinical approaches, Gondolf (1997) outlined three common goals as changing beliefs and attitudes that justify IPV, providing the skills to stop his abusive actions, and the long-term goal of preventing recidivism. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota, known as the Duluth model, has been widely adopted (Feder & Wilson, 2005). This model views domestic abuse as being rooted in patriarchal societal beliefs that portray men as having the right to exert power and control over women (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004; Shepard, 1992).

However, programs differ in how they help batterers acknowledge and stop behaving abusively. Cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) considers IPV as learned behaviors, requiring offenders to recognize that the abuse is under their control and that they can behave differently (Feder & Wilson, 2005). CBT focuses on changing abusive behaviors by providing skills to improve anger-management and communication (Babcock et al., 2004; Feder & Wilson, 2005). Although the Duluth and CBT models are typically perceived as different, a number of BIP programs incorporate aspects of both (i.e., a feminist philosophy and time-outs) and Babcock et al. (2004) concluded that neither is more effective with respect to recidivism.

Approaches using narrative therapy, the primary therapeutic model used in the current research, are increasingly being offered (Augusta-Scott & Dankwort, 2002; McGregor, Tutty, Babins-Wagner, & Gill, 2002). More recently, strength-based (Curwood, DeGeer, Hymmen, & Lehmann, 2011; von Wormer & Bednar, 2002) and solution-focused BIP programs (Lee, Uken, & Sebold, 2004; Milner & Singleton, 2008) have been developed.

While reducing violence is a key outcome, evaluations of BIP programs that use standardized clinical measures generally conclude that the programs effectively increase a batterer’s personal control and responsibility for his actions (Bowen, Gilchrist & Beech, 2008; Feder & Forde, 2000; Tutty, Bidgood, Rothery & Bidgood, 2001), reduce stress/trauma symptoms (Bennett, Stoops, Call, & Flett, 2007; Buttell & Pike, 2003; Tutty et al., 2001), decrease depression and anger (Barrera, Palmer, Brown, & Kalaher, 1994; Hamberger & Hastings, 1988; Huss & Ralston, 2008), and improve self-perception/esteem (Broady, Gray, & Gaffney, 2014; Lee et al., 2004).Assessing the reliability of the self-reports through the use of social desirability or lie scales is also common (DeHart, Kennedy, Burke, & Follingstad, 1999). The group member’s stage of change at the start of group is increasingly being used to examine response to treatment (Alexander, Morris, Tracy, & Frye, 2010; Eckhardt, Holtzworth-Munroe, Norlander, & Sibley, 2008; Scott & Wolfe, 2003).

Recidivism Related to BIPs

Because a major goal of innovative justice approaches and intervening with men who perpetrate violence against their partners is reducing future DV assaults, a number of researchers use recidivism as an outcome variable. Recidivism can be measured using different methods: official police or court justice records, batterer self-reports (seldom used), or victim’s reports, each with advantages and disadvantages. Research using police or court records usually finds much lower recidivism rates than those using victims’ reports (Dunford, 1992; Rosenfeld, 1992).

For an official record of reassault to exist, victims must have contacted the police or probation officials, who must then have intervened. However, women are often reluctant to involve the police; in Canada, the percentage of female victims who reported or had the incident reported to police dropped from 36% to 30% from 2009 to 2010 (Brennan & Dauvergne, 2011). This reluctance may reflect fears of the consequences to their partners, such as lost wages, or being threatened by their partners about what would happen to them or their children if they were to contact the authorities (Feder & Wilson, 2006; Heckert &Gondolf, 2000).

The length of time between the offense and the recidivism incident is also debated. A time-period of 2 years is common; however, several researchers have examined DV recidivism up to 10 years finding that, while most of the new incidents or breaches occurred during the first year of follow-up, a small proportion did not recidivate until 7 to 9 years later (Klein & Tobin, 2008; Tutty & Koshan, 2013).

Of studies that used recidivism as an outcome variable (primarily re-arrests for DV), most concluded that BIP completers were significantly less likely to recidivate than non-completers (Babcock & Steiner, 1999; Bennett et al., 2007; Coulter & VandeWeerd, 2009; Eckhardt et al., 2008; Hendricks, Werner, Shipway, & Turinetti, 2006; Palmer, Brown, & Barrera, 1992; Shepard, Falk, & Elliott, 2002). In Babcock and Steiner (1999), only 8% of treatment completers re-offended in comparison with 23% of non-completers, similar to Coulter and VandeWeerd’s 2006 study of multi-level batterer treatment programs (8% completer’s recidivism vs. 21% non-completers) with several exceptions in which completion did not affect recidivism (Dunford, 2000; Labriola, Rempel, & Davis, 2008).

In summary, the criminal justice system’s strategy of mandating intimate violence offenders to treatment is supported by research concluding that court-mandated men are more likely to complete treatment than self-referred batterers (Rosenbaum, Gearan, & Ondovic, 2001). However, ineffective interventions may not only be doing little to change batterers’ abusive behaviors but may put victims at increased risk because, as Gondolf (2002) purported, a man’s attending a batterer’s program is the “most influential factor in a woman’s return to her abusive partner” (p. 29), emphasizing the importance of evaluating recidivism after group participation.

Evaluations of batterer interventions programs tend to either use justice variables such as recidivism or clinical variables such as depression or stages of change. Few collect both types of information; exceptions include Bennett et al. (2007), Eckhardt et al. (2008), and Palmer et al. (1992). As such, the criminal justice system receives little feedback about how the men mandated to BIP programs fare afterward, and BIP programs rarely hear about recidivism post-group, unless a previous client is re-mandated to treatment.

The current data set offered the opportunity to look not only at criminal justice variables but also at whether clinical variables are associated with recidivism and the potential impact of introducing a specialized DV court. It asks several questions: What are the clinical outcomes and recidivism rates of men mandated to attend the Responsible Choices for Men (RCM) program before and after the implementation of Calgary’s specialized DV court? Furthermore, were there differential demographics or clinical features of the men mandated to RCM vis-à-vis the opening of the specialized court that might shed light on any differences in outcomes and recidivism rates?

Method

The Context of the Current Study: Calgary’s Specialized DV Court

Calgary’s DV court model developed in early 2000 with the input of key players from criminal justice institutions as well as community agencies that offer BIPs and support, shelter, and advocacy for victims (Tutty, McNichol, & Christensen, 2008). The initial emphasis on a specialized DV docket court (also known as “first appearance” or “bail court”) was to speed up the process to allow low risk offenders to take responsibility for their actions and facilitate their entry into treatment. The hope was to safeguard victims better because their partners were mandated to treatment much earlier, and to prevent repercussions to victims who, if the case proceeded to trial, might be required to testify. A 2004 evaluation (Hoffart & Clarke, 2004) noted that, whereas previous DV cases were resolved in an average of about 60 days, cases in the new DV court were resolved in 37 days, with 46% concluded within 2 weeks of the original police charges. Men who accepted the conditions of the peace bond could be mandated to attend one of three BIPs in Calgary and/or to substance abuse treatment or mental health evaluation. In 2005, the DV specialization expanded to the trial court (Tutty, & Koshan, 2013).

A court team consists of specially trained representatives from the Calgary Police Services Domestic Conflict Unit, Crown prosecutors, probation services, and court caseworkers from HomeFront, the non-profit agency that supports the court process. The court team meets for “precourt conferences” before docket court is in session each day and again during breaks. The team reviews the particulars of each case with the defense or duty counsel, taking into consideration the safety and wishes of the victims to determine what course they will pursue. A probation team with special training in the dynamics of DV monitors the progress of the men post-court involvement, including addressing any lack of attendance at mandated treatment.

To summarize the major enhancements in the new DV court process, the Crown prosecutors and probation officers operating in the court were all specialized in IPV, with enhanced citywide police training. As noted above, with the focus on the docket court, court-mandated referrals to BIP treatment happen much more quickly, which could positively affect the motivation of accused to be open to BIP intervention (Scott, 2004). The new agency, HomeFront, provides advocacy and support for victims within 24 hr of charges being laid, bringing victim’s perspectives and wishes to the court team.

An evaluation of the specialized court presented data on over 6,407 accused from a 10-year period, 1998 to 2008, captured the impact of the specialized docket as well as the full DV courtover the years (Tutty & Koshan, 2013). With respect to recidivism, the rate of new charges/breaches within 2 years of the initial changes after the introduction of the specialized court was 18.9%, statistically significantly lower than before the court was implemented (33.9%).

The RCM Program

The Calgary Counselling Centre in Alberta, Canada, has provided DV programs since 1981, including the RCM program, developed in the mid-1990s for men who use physical or psychological violence and control tactics in intimate relationships (McGregor et al., 2002). The program uses a narrative therapy approach with a feminist perspective developed by Australian family therapist Alan Jenkins (1991). The primary goal of the program is to assist men who abuse their intimate partners to become violence-free.

The program adheres to Lipchik and Kubicki’s (1996) 10 treatment assumptions about relationship violence from a solution-oriented, rather than a problem-oriented, framework. This systemic approach is considered to empower family members and more effectively assist them to assume responsibility for their behaviors (Lee et al., 2004). Such intervention highlights the importance of men learning to prevent violence by resolving disagreements and keeping arguments from escalating. Milner and Singleton (2008) published research on solution-based therapy with offenders in which the violence was reduced or eliminated. Lee et al. (2004) found that group members improved their cognitive and behavioral problem-solving skills.

A unique aspect of the RCM program is that, prior to entering the group, clients are engaged in counseling with a primary therapist in the agency who assesses the client’s readiness for change, the extent of the violence, and treatment goals. These individual counseling sessions may last for up to a year until the men are deemed ready for group from the transtheoretical theory of change perspective (Prochaska, 1995). The men are not necessarily still in intimate relationships but, should they have a partner, the therapist will invite them to meet during the assessment phase.

The RCM program comprises 30 hours of group sessions conducted over 14 weeks (2 hr per session although the first and last groups are 3 hr to accommodate the completion of the pre- and post-test measures). The groups consist of eight to 12 men who are both self- and court-referred. The sessions include both unstructured psychotherapeutic and structured psycho-educational components. Addressing the core themes is considered essential; however, therapists have the flexibility to focus on alternate issues should they emerge, allowing group members to address crises and to have input into the sessions.

A male–female team facilitates the groups. Having a mixed gender team provides modeling for conflict negotiation between men and women and resolving problems in non-abusive ways. In addition, a mixed gender team prevents a “male only” mind-set and assists in confronting stereotypes about both male and female roles. The model adopts techniques of social learning and cognitive behavioral theory including cognitive restructuring, stress or relaxation techniques, communication skill building, and sex-role socialization strategies. Additional techniques include role-playing, modeling appropriate behavior, monitoring conflict through “responsible choices logs,” and using time-outs.

Since the specialized court opened, mandated referrals to the RCM program almost doubled, as did the number of groups being offered each year (from 7 to 12). Furthermore, relationships and communication between the agency and criminal justice agencies and organizations such as HomeFront and Probation have improved dramatically, including regular visits between the Calgary Counselling Centre and justice agencies to meet staff and better understand their processes.

Data Collection and Measures

The research protocol was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Ethics Review Committee. The data were collected from two sources. Justice data were extracted from hard copies of the Crown prosecutor’s files (which also included police data), collected over a period of 10 years in an evaluation of the unique specialized DV court (Tutty & Koshan, 2013). Pretest and post-test data with respect to demographic and clinical variables associated with attending the Responsible Choice for Men’s groups had been in place for several decades.

Seven standardized measures were chosen to reflect the objectives of the RCM program. Three scales were administered only at pretest to add important descriptive information on the readiness for change and the self-reported abusive behaviors used by the men.

University of Rhode Island Change Assessment–Domestic Violence (URICA-DV)

The URICA-DV is a 20-item questionnaire (items employ a 5-point Likert-type response format with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree; Levesque, Gelles, & Velicer, 2001). The scale assesses the stages of change according to the transtheoretical model (Prochaska, 1995). The URICA-DV is specific to partner violence, assessing readiness to change violent behavior toward intimate partners. Separate subscales are provided for the stages of Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action High Relapse (high temptation to relapse), and Action Low Relapse (low temptation to relapse; Levesque, Driskell, Prochaska, & Prochaska, 2008). Levesque et al. (2001) reported internal consistency estimates ranging from .68 to .81.

Abuse of Partner Scales: Physical (PAPS) and Non-Physical (NPAPS)

These two 25-item measures assess perceived physical or non-physical abuse that clients have imposed on an intimate partner (Hudson, 1992). The PAPS contains items with respect to physical and forced sexual assault while the NPAPS reflects psychological abuse or coercive behaviors. Final scores range from zero to 100 with high scores indicating higher levels of abusive behaviors. The internal consistency of both scales is above .90. The PAPS has a clinical cutoff score of 2 and the NPAPS of 15 (Walmyr Publishing, 2014). As many of the men were no longer with the partners to whom they had behaved abusively, the Partner Abuse scales were not re-administered at post-test.

The remaining three measures were administered at both pretest and post-test, and represent variables that were hypothesized to improve as a result of attending the RCM group.

Generalized Contentment Scale

This 25-item scale measures the “degree, severity or magnitude of non-psychotic depression” (Hudson, 1992, p. 15). Items are rated on a 7-point scale from never to all the time with scores ranging from zero to 100. The scale has three cutting scores: above 30 suggests a clinically significant problem, scores above 50 suggests some suicidal ideation, while scores above 70 suggest a strong possibility that the respondent is experiencing severe distress. The coefficient alpha is .92; 2-hr test–retest reliability is .94.

Index of clinical stress

This 25-item scale measures the respondent’s perceived level of personal stress (Hudson, 1992). Scores range from 0 to 100, but with no clinical cutoff score. The Cronbach’s alpha is .96 and the scale has good construct and factorial validity.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Index

This 10-item measure uses a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Rosenberg, 1965). Possible scores range from 10 to 40 with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. Scores below 25 are interpreted as clinically problematic.

Finally, the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Test involves endorsing items that make one appear more competent or able than is typically feasible (“faking good”). Reynold’s (1982) 13-item short version (Form C) of the scale has acceptable internal reliability and significantly correlates (r = .93) with the original measure. Scores range from zero to 13 with higher scores representing greater social desirability. Saunders (1991) used the measure as a covariate to partial out social desirability effects, an analysis used in the current study.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square tests, F tests, or regression analyses, depending on the comparison.

Results

A total of 382 men who were mandated by the criminal justice system participated in RCM’s groups between 1998 and 2009. The first two tables describe the study population, examining whether there were differences in the demographic or the clinical measures before and after the specialized court was implemented. Any differences would signal that the two samples of men mandated to treatment differed, perhaps because of the new criminal justice focus on IPV, such as police laying charges in cases which, before their DV training, they would not have considered serious.

However, as can be seen in Table 1, very few descriptive characteristics differentiated the RCM members, pre- and post-specialized DV court introduction (differences noted below). Looking at the population as a whole, three quarters of the men were Caucasian, almost 19% were from visible minority backgrounds, and 4.3 were of aboriginal background, generally consistent with the racial background of residents of the city of Calgary (Cooper, 2006) that documents about 21% from visible minority groups and 3% of aboriginal background. At RCM group start, about 49% of the men were no longer cohabiting with the partners related to the police charges, while another 51% were together.

Table 1.

Demographic and Criminal Justice Variables Related to Specialized DV Court Implementation.

Variable	Categories	Before DV Court	After DV Court	Total	Significance
Racial group n = 350	Caucasian	51 (86.4%)	218 (74.9%)	269 (76.9%)	χ = 3.8; p = .15, ns
	Aboriginal	3 (4.8%)	16 (4.9%)	19 (4.3%)
	Ethnic minority	7 (11.1%)	67 (20.4%)	74 (18.9%)
Relationship at RCM start n = 360	Cohabiting	23 (39.0%)	152 (50.5%)	175 (48.6%)	χ = 2.6; p = .11, ns
Relationship at RCM start n = 360	Former partner	36 (61.0%)	149 (49.5%)	185 (51.4%)	χ = 2.6; p = .11, ns
Police charge n = 304	Common assault	27 (93.1%)	239 (86.9%)	266 (87.5%)	χ = 0.44; p = .51, ns
Police charge n = 304	More serious	2 (6.9%)	36 (13.1%)	38 (12.5%)	χ = 0.44; p = .51, ns
Any trial? n = 304	No	22 (75.9%)	186 (67.6%)	208 (68.4%)	χ = 0.49; p = .49, ns
Any trial? n = 304	Yes	7 (24.1%)	89 (32.4%)	96 (31.6%)	χ = 0.49; p = .49, ns
Finish group? n = 382	No	25 (33.8%)	86 (27.9%)	111 (29.1%)	χ = 1.0; p = .32, ns
Finish group? n = 382	Yes	49 (66.2%)	222 (72.1%)	271 (70.9%)	χ = 1.0; p = .32, ns
Timing of recidivism n = 306	No recidivism	15 (51.6%)	178 (64.3%)	193 (63.1%)	χ = 29; p < .000*** Cramer’s V = .31
	Before group	2 (6.9%)^a	75 (27.1%)	77 (25.2%)
	After group	12 (41.4%)^c	24 (8.7%)	39 (11.8%)
Stage of change at group start n = 322	Precontemplation	13 (31.7%)	88 (31.3%)	101 (31.4%)	χ = 9.6; p = .05* Cramer’s V = .17
	Contemplation	7 (17.1%)	47 (16.7%)	54 (16.8%)
	Preparation	9 (22.0%)	44 (15.7%)	53 (16.5%)
	Action high relapse	6 (14.6%)^a	14 (5%)	20 (621%)
	Action low relapse	6 (14.6%)	88 (31.3%)	94 (29.2%)

Note. Superscripts reflect the strength of standardized residuals: “a” is greater than 1.96, p < .05; “b” is greater than 2.58, or p < .01. “c” is greater than 3.29 or p < .001. DV = domestic violence; RCM = Responsible Choices for Men.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The majority of the police charges across groups were common assault or breaches (87.5%) while only about 12.5% represented more serious offenses including assault with a weapon (21), assault causing bodily harm (8), forcible confinement (2), stalking/criminal harassment (3), and sexual assault (1). The vast majority had their cases concluded without a criminal trial, common in both the non-DV specialized and the specialized court. Looking at all recidivism, including incidents that occurred prior to RCM group start (and may have been the impetus for being mandated to treatment), significantly fewer of the pre-DV court sample had re-offended before group start and significantly more of the post-RCM group re-offenses occurred before the specialized court (41.4%) as compared with after the court was implemented (8.7%; a “moderate” effect size).

Across conditions, 71% of the men completed the RCM groups to which they had been mandated. With respect to stages of change, about one third of the total sample was in precontemplation (not considering their abusive actions as relevant) and another third were in action-low relapse, suggesting that they were ready to make stable changes. Notably though, a significantly higher proportion of the men in the precourt sample were in the action-high relapse stage, suggesting that they could regress into contemplation or precontemplation although the effect size is weak (Rea & Parker, 1992).

Again, examining the characteristics of the sample of RCM group members, the information in Table 2 documents scores on the psychological measures at pretest as adjusted by social desirability, both before and after the specialized court started. In contrast to the demographic characteristics, the scores of the RCM group members before the specialized court on self-esteem, depression, and clinical stress were significantly more dysfunctional than the RCM group members post-court. However, the effect sizes for each of the comparisons were in the “negligible” range, suggesting that these were not important distinctions.

Table 2.

Pretest Scores (Adjusted by Social Desirability) of RCM Group Members Before and After Specialized Court Implementation.

Variable at Pretest	Pretest Before DV Court (n = 45)	Pretest After DV Court (n = 282)	Significance	Partial Eta-Squared
Marlowe–Crowne	4.9 (SD = 3.32)	7.2 (SD = 3.32)	F = 19.5; p < .000***	.06
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Adjusted*	18.9 (SD = 5.3)	22 (SD = 5.2)	F = 15.1; p < .000*	.04
Generalized Contentment Scale Adjusted	37.8 (SD = 15.7)	28.2 (SD = 15.1)	F = 21.2; p < .000***	.06
Index of clinical stress adjusted	38.8 (SD = 16.2)	28.9 (SD = 15.8)	F = 20.6; p < .000**	.06
Psychological Abusing Partner (NPAPS) Adjusted	18.2 (SD = 11.0)	11.6 (SD = 9.6)	F = 23.0; p < .000**	.06
Physically Abusing Partner (PAPS) Adjusted	4.1 (SD = 4.2)	2.7 (SD = 5.4)	F = 3.8; p = .056, ns

Note. RCM = Responsible Choices for Men; DV = domestic violence; NPAPS = Non-Physical Abuse of Partner Scale; PAPS = Physical Abuse of Partner Scale.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The self-esteem and depression measures both have clinical cutoff scores showing that all of the RCM members were reporting scores in the clinical ranges. The Marlowe–Crowne scores also differentiated the two groups, but, on average, the post-court group was attempting to present itself in a more socially desirable manner. However, both groups had scores at about or below the mean score in Andrew and Moyer’s 2003 study of forensic populations and below the mean scores in Eckhardt et al. (2008) BIP evaluation, both reporting 7.6 to 8 points on average. Finally, there were no significant differences on the two partner abuse measures. However, the average post-court men’s self-reports of their physical and psychologically abusive behaviors were not in the clinical range compared with men in the precourt condition.

The data in Table 3 represent the RCM group changes from pretest to post-test, considering the introduction of the specialized DV court or not. The regression analyses focused on the post-test scores as the dependent variables, with pretest scores as covariates and when the DV court was implemented as an independent variable. All three psychological measures (adjusted by social desirability) significantly improved after RCM group completion irrespective of whether or not the specialized DV court had been implemented. At post-test, scores on the two measures with clinical cutoffs (self-esteem and depression) remained in the clinical range for the before court implementation RCM group but the post-court RCM group moved out of the clinical range on these. Jacobson and Truax (1991) saw moving from the clinical to the non-clinical range in addition to statistical significance as an additional standard when considering the importance of findings.

Table 3.

Regression Analysis of Outcomes of RCM Group Completers Before and After Specialized Court Implementation.

Variable at Pretest	Before DV Court		After DV Court		Significance by Court Year	Significance of Pretest/Post-test	Partial Eta²
Variable at Pretest	Pretest	Post-test	Pretest	Post-test	Significance by Court Year	Significance of Pretest/Post-test	Partial Eta²
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Adjusted	18.8 (n = 32)	19.5	22.4 (n = 194)	21.6	F = 0.2; p = .88	F = 135; p < .000***	.38
Generalized Contentment Adjusted	39.3 (n = 38)	29.5	26.5 (n = 197)	22.7	F = 0.5; p = .47	F = 187; p < .000***	.45
Index of clinical stress adjusted	39.4 (n = 38)	25.5	28.1 (n = 194)	18.4	F = 2.2; p = .14	F = 29.5; p < .000***	.26

Note. RCM = Responsible Choices for Men; DV = domestic violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As noted in the literature review, in cases of IPV, re-offenses occur often, sometimes repeatedly. It was of interest to examine whether post-group recidivism was related to other demographic or criminal justice variables as this could influence how those more at risk to recidivate were treated in the agency and RCM group (see Table 4). However, with the exception of whether the recidivism was before or after the DV court was established, none of the variables were significant.

Table 4.

Demographic and Criminal Justice Variables Related to Recidivism Post-RCM Group.

Variable	Categories	No Recidivism (270)	Recidivism After Group (36)	Significance
Relationship	Cohabiting	134 (88.7)	17 (11.3%)	χ = 0.1 (p = .91) ns
Relationship	Former Partner	135 (87.7%)	19 (12.3%)	χ = 0.1 (p = .91) ns
Police charge	Common Assault	236 (88.7%)	30 (11.3%)	χ = 0.0 (p = .95) ns
Police charge	More Serious	33 (86.8%)	5 (13.2%)	χ = 0.0 (p = .95) ns
Any trial?	Yes	80 (83.3%)^b	16 (16.7%)	χ = 2.9 (p = .09) ns
Any trial?	No	189 (90.9%)	16 (16.7%)	χ = 2.9 (p = .09) ns
Finish group?	No	75 (88.2%)	10 (11.8%)	χ = 0 (p = 1.0) ns
Finish group?	Yes	195 (88.2%)	26 (11.8%)	χ = 0 (p = 1.0) ns
When attended RCM	Pre-DV Court	17 (58.6%)	12 (41.4%)^c	χ = 24 (p < .000)*** Cramer’s V = .30
When attended RCM	Post-DV Court	253 (91.3%)	24 (8.7%)	χ = 24 (p < .000)*** Cramer’s V = .30

Note. Superscripts reflect the strengths of the standardized residuals: “a” is greater than 1.96, p < .05; “b” is greater than 2.58, p < .01; “c” is greater than 3.29, p < .001. RCM = Responsible Choices for Men; DV = domestic violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study gathered information on BIP program outcomes and recidivism over a longer period of time than most (more than 10 years), comparable only to Coulter and VandeWeerd (2009) and Klein and Tobin (2008) who also collected data for 9 or 10 years. The RCM group completion rate of 71% is comparable with the 75% of Bennett et al. (2007). However, similar to several batterer treatment evaluations (Dunford, 2000; Labriola et al., 2008), completing the groups was not associated with lower post-program recidivism.

The demographic characteristics of the RCM-mandated group measure did not differ from the precourt to post-court period; however, the precourt group self-reported significantly more dysfunctional depression, stress, and self-esteem (although the effect sizes were negligible). Thus, while the nature of the partner abuse and criminal justice related variable was consistent, the post-court men were reporting less serious clinical issues on average (although still in the clinical range). It is difficult to interpret why this might be the case. As noted, the number of men mandated to RCM increased dramatically once the specialized IPV court was established and the difference may simply reflect a greater range of scores for the larger sample size.

The improvements on the clinical measures (adjusted by social desirability) after RCM group participation both before and after court implementation with moderate to strong effect sizes are important, but not unexpected. The scales were chosen to examine clinical responses to the RCM group, not because of any expected relationship to recidivism, and have been associated with statistically significant improvements in other RCM program evaluations (McGregor et al., 2002; Tutty, Babins-Wagner & Rothery, 2009). Such improvements on psychological variables matter to the criminal justice system. For example, Barrera et al. (1994) reported that depressed men were more likely to recidivate than those who functioned better, suggesting the importance of retaining clinical perspectives on men with criminal charges. Post-RCM group, the men can re-connect with their primary therapist to continue individual counseling if needed. Given the still clinical scores on self-esteem for many group members post-RCM, this seems an important next step, yet it is unclear how many men do this.

RCM post-program recidivism before the court was implemented was 41.2% compared with 8.2% afterward (a moderate effect size). The 8% recidivism rate is almost identical to that reported for group completers by Babcock and Steiner (1999) and Coulter and VandeWeerd (2009). Other research on post-treatment recidivism for BIP program completers and non-completers considered together were in the 18% to 29% range (Bennett et al., 2007; Hendricks et al., 2006).

Lest victims place too much faith in the criminal justice system and BIP groups to stop their partners re-offending, it was of interest to examine whether other factors might be related to post-group recidivism. However, the only statistically significant association was that those who re-offended were much more likely to have been charged before the introduction of the specialized DV court in 2001 than afterward. This provides support for the court and the community coordinated response that is entailed in its operations. While the specialized DV court was introduced in 2001, Calgary Counselling’s RCM groups had been established for several decades, and no major changes to the curriculum have been made since. The other major players in the court team, including the Crown prosecutor office and Probation Services, had previously dealt with high numbers of DV cases; thus, it was the improved coordination exemplified in the specialized DV court model with team members working together more closely and with an enhanced understanding of the dynamics of IPV that is reflected in this significantly reduced recidivism rate. Furthermore, probation officers in the courtroom could much more quickly refer to the RCM group, and additional resources meant that the Calgary Counselling Centre offered more groups to accommodate the increased numbers mandated to BIP treatment. The significantly lowered post-RCM group recidivism rate after the specialized court was introduced suggests the impact of the system working collaboratively, rather than any one particular aspect.

Any justice information that could assist agencies in predicting who is at most risk of re-offending after group would be of value, including carefully collecting information about whether the men had new charges or breached orders before attending the program, the nature of the criminal charges, and whether the case proceeded to trial, perhaps by collaborating more closely with probation services on these specific cases.

The study is not without limitations. Common with other studies using police-reported recidivism as a variable, women often have significant reasons for not contacting the police if their partners re-offend and that police officers may not formally act in response to such incidents by laying charges; thus, police-reported recidivism under-estimates the “real” recidivism rates. Furthermore, although the 10-year span of the research is commendable and recidivism more often happens within 2 years of the initial incident, recidivism was more likely identified in the precourt sample with the longer time frame. The justice data were collected from hard files, only after the Crown prosecutors had finished their work, so cases of police-reported recidivism were almost certainly missed.

Because scores on the standardized clinical measures reported may not accurately assess symptoms or issues, we made the extra effort to adjust these score with the social desirability index. Notably, as well, the average Marlowe–Crowne scores were well below the norms of DV and other criminal offenders (Andrews & Moyer, 2003; Eckhardt et al., 2008). Nonetheless, one must remain skeptical about self-report data for any criminalized population.

The current merging of the data sets from the criminal justice system and the RCM program resulted in important findings but was by no means a perfect marriage. The goals, philosophies, and workings of the criminal justice system and BIP programs differ substantially. Criminal justice personnel such as prosecutors would not likely express interest in improvements in depression, anxiety, or self-esteem, unless informed of the previously cited linkages to IPV perpetration and recidivism.

In conclusion, the opportunity to merge community agency data with criminal justice data over a 10-year period has provided important information that should provide confidence to communities considering developing specialized DV courts in conjunction with coordinated community responses. The consequences of IPV are serious and such collaboration is needed to more appropriately address this significant social problem.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to the staff of the Crown’s office and HomeFront, both the domestic court caseworkers and the administrative support, for facilitating access to the data. Thanks also to Bianca Giurgiu, who consolidated the information from the two large databases.

Authors’ Note

The Evaluation Team included Sheena Cunningham (Crown Prosecutor’s Office Calgary), Shawne Young (Chief Probation Officer, Calgary District Probation), Robbie Babins-Wagner (CEO, Calgary Counselling Centre), Carolyn Goard, Arla Liska, and Cynthia Wild (Young Women’s Christian Association [YWCA] of Calgary Sheriff King Home), Dr. Sue Ludwig and Aggie King-Smith (Alberta Mental Health Board), Leslie Buckle (Senior Evaluation Analyst, National Crime Prevention Centre), and Kevin McNichol (Executive Director, HomeFront).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Crime Prevention Centre of Public Safety Canada, and the Alberta Law Foundation.

Author Biographies

Leslie M. Tutty is a professor emerita with the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary where she taught courses in both clinical social work methods and research. Over the past 25 years, her research has focused on services for domestic violence including a number of evaluations of shelter and post-shelter programs for abused women, support groups for abused women, treatment for adult and child victims of sexual abuse, and groups for men who abuse their partners. A new interest is homelessness, particularly how it affects women abused by intimate partners and their children. From 1999 to 2011, she served as the academic research co-ordinator of RESOLVE Alberta, a tri-provincial research institute on family violence. RESOLVE is one of Canada’s centers of excellence in research on violence against women and children. As such, she has had the privilege of collaborating with a number of the leading researchers in violence against women across Canada.

Robbie Babins-Wagner is the chief executive officer, Calgary Counselling Centre, an adjunct professor, and sessional instructor with the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary. She has over 35 years of experience in counseling, family violence, mental health, health care, and child welfare. She is an approved social work supervisor (Alberta) and a clinical fellow and approved supervisor with the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy. Her clinical practice and research interests are focused in the areas of family violence, counseling, child welfare, depression, and outcomes. She has presented papers and workshops at conferences locally, provincially, nationally, and internationally.

References

Alexander

P. C.

Morris

Tracy

Frye

(2010). Stages of change and the group treatment of batterers: A randomized clinical trial. Violence and Victims, 25, 571-587. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.571

Andrews

Moyer

R. G.

(2003). Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and Short Form C: Forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 483-492. doi:10.1002/jclp.10136

Augusta-Scott

Dankwort

(2002). Partner abuse group intervention: Lessons from education and narrative therapy approaches. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 783-805. doi:10.1177/0886260502017007006

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Robie

(2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001

Babcock

J. C.

Steiner

(1999). The relationship between treatment, incarceration, and recidivism of battering: A program evaluation of Seattle’s coordinated community response to domestic violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 46-59.

Barrera

Palmer

Brown

Kalaher

(1994). Characteristics of court-involved men and non-court-involved men who abuse their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 333-345. doi:10.1007/BF01531943

Bennett

L. W.

Stoops

Call

Flett

(2007). Program completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 42-54. doi:10.1177/1049731506293729

Bowen

Gilchrist

Beech

A. R.

(2008). Change in treatment has no relationship with subsequent re-offending in U.K. domestic violence sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5), 598-614. doi:10.1177/0306624X08319419

Brennan

Dauvergne

(2011). Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.pdf

10.

Broady

T. R.

Gray

Gaffney

(2014). Taking responsibility: A psychological profile of men attending a domestic violence group work intervention program in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2610-2629. doi:10.1177/0886260513517300

11.

Buttell

F. P.

Pike

C. K.

(2003). Investigating the differential effectiveness of a batterer treatment program on outcomes for African American and Caucasian batterers. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(6), 675-692. doi:10.1177/1049731503254055

12.

Cooper

(2006). Demographic trends and implications for the city of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

13.

Coulter

VandeWeerd

(2009). Reducing domestic violence and other criminal recidivism: Effectiveness of a multilevel batterers intervention program. Violence and Victims, 24, 139-152. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.24.2.139

14.

Curwood

S. E.

DeGeer

Hymmen

Lehmann

(2011). Using strength-based approaches to explore pretreatment change in men who abuse their partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2698-2715. doi:10.1177/0886260510388283

15.

Dawson

Dinovitzer

(2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 15, 593-622. doi:10.1080/07418820100095031

16.

DeHart

D. D.

Kennedy

R. J.

Burke

L. K.

Follingstad

D. R.

(1999). Predictors of attrition in a treatment program for battering men. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 19-34. doi:10.1023/A:1022861809014

17.

Dorf

M. C.

Fagen

J. A.

(2003). Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1501-1511.

18.

Dunford

F. W.

(1992). The measurement of recidivism in cases of spouse assault. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, 120-136.

19.

Dunford

F. W.

(2000). The San Diego Navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468-434. doi:10.1037110022-006X.68.3.468

20.

Eckhardt

Holtzworth-Munroe

Norlander

Sibley

(2008). Readiness to change, partner violence subtypes, and treatment outcomes among men in treatment for partner assault. Violence and Victims, 23, 446-475. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.4.446

21.

Feder

Forde

(2000). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counselling for domestic violence offenders: The Boward Experiment (NCJ Document No. 184631). Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184631.pdf

22.

Feder

Wilson

D. B.

(2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behaviour? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262. doi:10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0

23.

Feder

Wilson

D. B.

(2006). Mandated batterer intervention programs to reduce domestic violence. In Welsh

B. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 131-145). London, UK: Springer.

24.

Gondolf

E. W.

(1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 83-98. doi:10.1177/088626097012001006

25.

Gondolf

E. W.

(2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes, and recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Gover

A. R.

Brank

E. M.

MacDonald

J. M.

(2007). A specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: An example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13, 603-626. doi:10.1177/1077801207301553

27.

Gover

A. R.

MacDonald

J. M.

Alpert

G. P.

(2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 109-132.

28.

Hamberger

L. K.

Hastings

J. E.

(1988). Skills training of spouse abusers: An outcome study. Journal of Family Violence, 3(2), 121-130.

29.

Hamby

S. L.

McDonald

Grych

(2014). Trends in violence research: An update through 2013. Psychology of Violence, 4, 1-7. doi:10.1037/a0035384

30.

Heckert

D. A.

Gondolf

E. W.

(2000). Predictors of underreporting of male violence by batterer program participants and their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 423-443. doi:10.1023/A:1007562431410

31.

Hendricks

Werner

Shipway

Turinetti

G. J.

(2006). Recidivism among spousal abusers: Predictions and program evaluation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 703-716. doi:10.1177/0886260506287310

32.

Hoffart

Clarke

(2004). HomeFront evaluation: Final report. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: HomeFront Evaluation Committee.

33.

Hudson

(1992). The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR.

34.

Huss

M. T.

Ralston

(2008). Do batterer subtypes actually matter? Treatment completion, treatment response, and recidivism across a batterer typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 710-724. doi:10.1177/0093854808316218

35.

Jacobson

N. S.

Truax

(1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12

36.

Jenkins

(1991). Intervention with violence and abuse in families: The inadvertent perpetuation of irresponsible behaviour. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 186-195. doi:10.1002/j.1467-8438.1991.tb00871.x

37.

Klein

A. R.

Tobin

(2008). A longitudinal study of arrested batterers, 1995-2005: Career criminals. Violence Against Women, 14, 136-157. doi:10.1177/1077801207312396

38.

Labriola

Bradley

O’Sullivan

C. S.

Rempel

Moore

(2010). A national portrait of domestic violence courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229659.pdf

39.

Labriola

Rempel

Davis

R. C.

(2008). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25, 252-282. doi:10.1080/07418820802024945

40.

Lee

M. Y.

Uken

Sebold

(2004). Accountability for change: Solution-focused treatment with domestic violence offenders. Families in Society, 85, 463-476.

41.

Levesque

D. A.

Driskell

Prochaska

J. M.

Prochaska

J. O.

(2008). Acceptability of a stage-matched expert system intervention for domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 23, 432-445. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.4.432

42.

Levesque

D. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Velicer

W. F.

(2001). Development and validation of a stages of change measure for men in batterer treatment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 175-199. doi:10.1023/A:1005446025201

43.

Lipchik

Kubicki

A. D.

(1996). Solution-focused domestic violence views: Bridges toward a new reality in couples therapy. In Miller

S. D.

Hubble

M. A.

Duncan

B. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy (pp. 65-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

44.

Maytal

(2008). Specialized domestic violence courts: Are they worth the trouble in Massachusetts? Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 18, 197-235. Retrieved from www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/

45.

McGregor

Tutty

Babins-Wagner

Gill

(2002). The long-term impact of group treatment for partner abuse. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 21, 67-84.

46.

Milner

Singleton

(2008). Domestic violence: Solution-focused practice with men and women who are violent. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 29-53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2008.00414.x

47.

Palmer

S. E.

Brown

R. A.

Barrera

M. E.

(1992). Group treatment program for abusive husbands: Long-term evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 276-283.

48.

Prochaska

(1995). An eclectic and integrative approach: Transtheoretical therapy. In Gurman

Messer

(Eds.), Essential psychotherapies: Theory and practice (pp. 403-440). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

49.

Rea

L. M.

Parker

R. A.

(1992). Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50.

Reynolds

(1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 118-125. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

51.

Rosenbaum

Gearan

P. J.

Ondovic

(2001). Completion and recidivism among court- and self-referred batterers in a psychoeducational group treatment program: Implications for intervention and public policy. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5, 199-220. doi:10.1300/J146v05n02_12

52.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

53.

Rosenfeld

B. D.

(1992). Court-ordered treatment of spouse abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 205-226. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(92)90115-O

54.

Saunders

D. G.

(1991). Procedures for adjusting self-reports of violence for social desirability bias. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 336-344. doi:10.1177/088626091006003006

55.

Scott

K. L.

(2004). Predictors of change among male batterers: Application of theories and review of empirical findings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 260-284. doi:10.1177/1524838003264339

56.

Scott

K. L.

Wolfe

D. A.

(2003). Readiness to change as a predictor of outcome in batterer treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 879-889. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.879

57.

Shepard

M. F.

(1992). Predicting batterer recidivism five years after community intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 167-178. doi:10.1007/BF00979025

58.

Shepard

M. F.

Falk

D. R.

Elliott

B. A.

(2002). Enhancing coordinated community responses to reduce recidivism in cases of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 551-569. doi:10.1177/0886260502017005005

59.

Tolman

R. M.

Weisz

(1995). Coordinated community intervention for domestic violence: The effects of arrest and prosecution on recidivism of woman abuse perpetrators. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 481-495. doi:10.1177/0011128795041004007

60.

Tsai

(2000). The trend toward specialized domestic violence courts: Improvements on an effective innovation. The Fordham Review, 68, 1285-1327. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol68/iss4/8

61.

Tutty

L. M.

Babins-Wagner

Rothery

(2009). A comparison of women who were mandated and non-mandated to the “Responsible Choices for Women” Group. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 770-793. doi:10.1080/10926770903249777

62.

Tutty

L. M.

Bidgood

B. A.

Rothery

M. A.

Bidgood

(2001). An evaluation of men’s batterer treatment groups. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(6), 645-670. doi:10.1177/104973150101100602

63.

Tutty

L. M.

Koshan

(2013). Calgary’s specialized domestic violence court: An evaluation of a unique model. Alberta Law Review, 50, 731-755. Retrieved from www.albertalawreview.com

64.

Tutty

L. M.

McNichol

Christensen

(2008). Calgary’s HomeFront specialized domestic violence court. In Ursel

Tutty

LeMaistre

(Eds.), What’s law got to do with it? The law, specialized courts and domestic violence in Canada (pp. 152-171). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Cormorant Books and RESOLVE.

65.

Ursel

Hagyard

(2008). The Winnipeg family violence court. In Ursel

Tutty

L. M.

LeMaistre

(Eds.), What’s law got to do with it? The law, specialized courts and domestic violence in Canada (pp. 95-119). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Cormorant Books and RESOLVE.

66.

von Wormer

Bednar

S. G

. (2002). Working with male batterers: A restorative-strengths perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83, 552-565.

67.

Walmyr Publishing. (2014). Assessment scales. Retrieved from http://www.walmyr.com/scales.html